CBA CCTV Final Locked

Practice Advice on
THE USE OF CCTV

IN CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS
2011
Produced on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers
by the National Policing Improvement Agency
This has been published as an interim product due to the development
of Authorised Professional Practice (APP) and may be published in an
alternative format in the future as part of the APP programme.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Practice Advice on the Use of CCTV in Criminal Investigations 2011
This practice advice contains information to assist policing in the United
Kingdom. It is NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED under the Government
Protective Marking Scheme.
This practice advice has been produced by the National Policing
Improvement Agency (NPIA) on behalf of the Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO). It will be updated according to legislative and policy
changes and re-released as required.
The NPIA was established by the Police and Justice Act 2006. As part of its
remit the NPIA is required to develop policing doctrine, including practice
advice, in consultation with ACPO, the Home Office and the Police Service.
Practice advice produced by the NPIA should be used by chief officers to
shape police responses to ensure that the general public experience
consistent levels of service. The implementation of all practice advice will
require operational choices to be made at local level in order to achieve the
appropriate police response.
(This publication is available as a PDF only.)
If you would like to receive this publication in an
alternative format, please contact:
Specialist Operations Centre
Wyboston Lakes, Great North Road
Wyboston, Bedfordshire MK44 3BY
Telephone: 0845 000 5463
Email: soc@npia.pnn.police.uk
All other enquiries relating to this publication should
also be addressed to the Specialist Operations Centre
at the above address.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ACPO, NPIA 2011
2011
Practice Advice on
THE USE OF CCTV
IN CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS
Produced on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers
by the National Policing Improvement Agency
First published 2011
National Policing Improvement Agency
Fry Building, Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
ACPO and the NPIA would like to express their thanks to all those involved in
the drafting of this document. All of the responses during the consultation
phase of this project were appreciated and contributed to the final
document.
NPIA (National Policing Improvement Agency) 2011
ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) 2011
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified,
amended, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, without the prior written permission of the National Policing
Improvement Agency and the Association of Chief Police Officers or their
duly authorised representative.
For copyright specific enquiries, please telephone the National Police Library
on 01256 602650.
Contents
Introduction 7
Technical Terms 8
1 The Basics 9
2 Legal Responsibilities 19
3 Viewing and Retrieving 25
4 Post Retrieval 35
5 Exhibits 41
6 Viewing CCTV 45
7 Using CCTV as an Investigative Tool 49
8 Introducing CCTV Images During Interview 61
9 Disclosure and Preparation of CCTV 67
Footage for Court
10 Retention and Disposal 73
Appendix 1 77
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Appendix 2 81
Relevant Case Law
Appendix 3 91
Sample Request for Disclosure of Personal
Data Template (Under DPA Section 29(3))
Appendix 4 93
Sample Retention Notice Template
(Under SOCPA Section 66)
6
Appendix 5 95
Sample Viewing Log Template
Appendix 6 97
Sample Feedback Template
Appendix 7 99
References
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) can provide compelling evidence and
investigators should consider it in every investigation. Although CCTV is
primarily used for corroborating what is already known or suspected in
volume crime incidents, it is a powerful tool for triggering further
investigative opportunities. It can be used, for example, to show the nature
and severity of offences and to identify suspects and witnesses,
inconsistencies in accounts and forensic or scientific opportunities, such as
the location of discarded property or vehicles, especially where it may seem
that an investigation has come to a standstill.
Chief officers should demonstrate their leadership in this area by:
Ensuring that investigators are provided with appropriate and
up-to-date training and refresher courses in the basic
processes of acquiring and preparing CCTV material from the
numerous systems in use;
Ensuring that basic, fit-for-purpose equipment and facilities are
available to investigators for the timely viewing and copying or
retrieval of CCTV material, including software that enables
compatibility between the many and varied CCTV systems available;
Establishing, implementing and overseeing policies to ensure
that the use of CCTV (and its supervision) in investigations
achieves its full potential.
The value of images cannot be overstated. They present evidence in a
unique way, and allow those involved with the criminal justice system
to visualise the crimes in question. When a case goes to court
reinforced by good CCTV material, the prosecution is more likely to
achieve a conviction.
In addition, CCTV can be a deterrent to potential offenders, can help
to reassure the public, can assist public authorities to manage ongoing
incidents, and helps to protect businesses, vulnerable premises and
national facilities. It is also a useful tool when risk assessing scenes
prior to the deployment of the emergency services.
This practice advice offers good practice to Professionalising
Investigation Programme (PIP) Level 1 and 2 investigators in the use
of CCTV as an investigative tool. It does not define roles and
responsibilities, nor does it cover any specialist techniques. It provides
the volume crime investigator with a comprehensive set of
fundamental processes and procedures for acquiring useful and usable
CCTV material. The same principles will apply in serious or major
incidents, but processes and procedures will require appropriate
scaling and resourcing, with responsibilities and functions being
assigned to CCTV specific roles. This practice advice covers only the
post-event use of CCTV materials and not real-time CCTV, often found
in a police command and control environment. The covert use of
CCTV is also outside the scope of this document.
Introduction
7
8
CCTV systems, ie, surveillance items comprising cameras and associated
equipment for monitoring, recording, transmission and controlling
purposes, for use in a defined zone, come in many different forms. The
technology used is also continually changing. For the purposes of this
document, a ground-level understanding of the fundamentals of CCTV
systems is assumed. A brief definition of the most commonly used
terminology is given below.
Analogue CCTV
Analogue CCTV is a method of recording video using a VHS tape.
Digital CCTV
Digital CCTV surveillance uses computer technology to digitise the
CCTV camera images and compress them. CCTV can be stored on a
PC-based system or a dedicated digital video recorder (DVR).
Hard Drive
The hard drive houses the hard disk where files are stored on a
PC-based system.
Managed Systems
This is a network of cameras sited in public areas, usually managed by
the local authority, shopping centres or larger organisations. CCTV from
these managed systems is not always stored on site.
Network Video Recorders (Hybrids)
A Network Video Recorder (NVR) or hybrid is a a digital video recorder
that has either a VHS or DVD recorder attached to record its output.
They use standard network cabling and management to transfer the
digital image from the camera to the recorder. These are often used in
large corporate environments, but can result in a poor-quality output.
Private Systems
These can be stand-alone or a network of cameras owned and
managed by an individual, independent business or trader.
Resolution
This is a measure of the quality of definition and clarity of picture that
an imaging device is able to accurately reproduce.
Time-Lapse Video Recording
This is a method of extending the recording duration of the system by
reducing the number of frames per second that are stored.
Technical
Terms
The Basics
This section covers the fundamentals of using CCTV
in an investigation. It includes setting objectives
and parameters for the use of CCTV within an
investigation, locating relevant CCTV evidence and
prioritising trawls and retrievals to make best use of
available resources.
9
10
1: The Basics
Contents
1.1 Introduction 11
1.2 CCTV in Investigations 11
1.3 Logistics 13
1.3.1 Setting Objectives 13
1.4 Parameters 14
1.4.1 Time Parameters 14
1.4.2 Location Parameters 15
1.4.3 Changing Parameters 15
1.5 Locating CCTV 16
1.6 Prioritising Trawls 17
1.6.1 Factors to Consider 17
1.7 Prioritising Retrievals 17
1.7.1. Retrieving CCTV from Vehicles 18
Figures
Figure 1 Immediate Benefits and Outcomes of CCTV 12
in an Investigation
Figure 2 CCTV Locations 16
ACPO (2005) Practice Advice on Core Investigative Doctrine
provides national guidance on investigative good practice, as defined
by PIP, which requires investigators to be able to perform their role to
an agreed national standard. The use of CCTV, within these
frameworks, provides PIP Level 1 and 2 investigators with another tool
and potential source of evidence when tackling volume crime. ACPO
(2009) Practice Advice on the Management of Priority and
Volume Crime (The Volume Crime Management Model), Second
Edition gives further information on volume crime.
Given the increasing importance of CCTV to police investigations, it is
crucial that investigators are able to correctly collect and use footage to
provide the best evidence for prosecutions.
The first opportunity to use CCTV material in an investigation usually
occurs during the initial response to the report of a crime. During this
phase of the investigation, the location of the offence, the time it
occurred and the identity or descriptions of victims, witnesses and
offenders will usually become known to the police. These will form the
basis of the first trawl for CCTV material. In some cases, investigators
will have more material to work with, such as descriptions and
registration details of vehicles that are relevant to the offences and the
access and exit routes used by offenders.
While it may not be possible for the investigator to view the CCTV
material straight away, it is vital to the investigation that footage is
obtained as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Although the levels of information available will vary from case to case,
it will be highly unusual for there to be so little information that an
intelligence-led CCTV trawl cannot be carried out at this stage. Even
where only the approximate time and location is known, viewing
nearby CCTV may reveal material that provides the basis for further
lines of enquiry.
CCTV can be useful in all types of investigations. Figure 1 shows some
of its immediate benefits and outcomes.
1.1 Introduction
11
1: The Basics
1.2 CCTV in
Investigations
12
Figure 1 Immediate Benefits and Outcomes of CCTV in an Investigation
1: The Basics
Help identify suspects, witnesses
and vehicles involved.
Identify forensic opportunities
such as DNA and ngerprints.
Verify a witnesss or suspects
account.
Provide evidence of
reconnaissance by suspect.
Indicate entry and exit routes
from the scene of an incident.
Identify behaviour before,
during and after an incident.
Immediate
Benets
Establish a timeline of events.
Outcomes
Provide evidence of an
offence and may lead to early
guilty plea.
Provide material for intelligence
systems.
Help prove that an allegation or
a report is true or false.
Provide evidence of police
actions or response.
Assist with missing persons
enquiries.
Once investigators have gathered all the information they can from victims
and witnesses, and have secured scenes for forensic examination, they
should consider their CCTV strategy in proportion to the type of offence.
This will include:
Setting objectives, eg, to trace the suspects movements after
leaving the scene;
Setting parameters, eg, look at CCTV recorded in the one hour
period after leaving the scene between that location and the
suspects home address;
Locating CCTV;
Prioritising trawls, eg, concentrate on the home address and
then move nearer to the scene;
Legislation, eg, whether Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)
1984 warrants may be needed, data protection requirements;
Viewing and retrieving;
Ensuring the continuity of exhibits;
Disclosure, retention and disposal.
The strategy should be decided as soon as possible because it may lead
to the identification of lines of enquiry that will enable more material to
be secured quickly. This is particularly important in the case of forensic
or fingerprint material, which may deteriorate over time. It may also
provide a focus for subsequent appeals to identify suspects.
1.3.1 Setting Objectives
The first thing to do is to identify the objectives of the CCTV strategy. In
many cases this will be obvious and it will consist of locating CCTV images
of the event itself or images of victims, witnesses or offenders going to or
leaving the scene. There will be occasions where the objectives are more
complex and these usually occur later in the investigation when there is a
need to verify the accounts given by individuals or to test the hypotheses
investigators have developed to help them make progress in the
investigation. In either case, it is essential for investigators to have a clear
understanding of what it is they are hoping to find on CCTV images.
As an absolute minimum, investigators should seek to identify any
CCTV material that shows the offence being committed. They should
do this even where there appears to be other material indicating a
suspects involvement because, at this early stage of the investigation,
it is impossible to predict what material will be relevant. Investigators
should also bear in mind that CCTV footage that does not directly
show the offence may be just as relevant as that which does.
1.3 Logistics
13
1: The Basics
14
After considering the objective(s), the next step is to focus the search
for CCTV on specific times and locations that are relevant to the
objective(s). This requires setting the time and location parameters.
1.4.1 Time Parameters
In some cases the time that is of interest to an investigator will be
reasonably clear, especially where victims and witnesses have been
present during a crime, such as an assault, and can estimate with some
accuracy when it occurred. Even when no one is present, information such
as the times that alarm systems were activated or when someone heard
a window break may provide a time around which parameters can be set.
In other cases this will not be so easy. For example, in many burglaries
and thefts from unattended vehicles, victims may only be able to
provide the time at which they left the building or vehicle secure and
the time at which they returned and discovered the offence. This may
cover a period of several hours.
When the time of the crime is known, the time parameters should
include a contingency period before and after. This will provide a
safeguard against errors in estimating the time of the crime. It will also
capture events leading up to and following the crime which may be
relevant. The contingency period will vary depending on the offence,
but it is advisable to keep it as short as possible. In straightforward
cases, ten minutes either side of the reported time should be sufficient.
Setting wide parameters can significantly slow down the CCTV
recovery process and may necessitate the seizure of hard drives/DVR
units. Where this is necessary, plans for replacement units must be put
in place prior to seizing the units themselves.
After confirming the system time difference (see 3.2 How to Note the
Correct Time and Date on the CCTV System) and viewing the
footage on site, if nothing of value can be obtained from the CCTV
material within the set time parameters, investigators may need to
reassess these time parameters after further review of the intelligence
or information that they have on the crime.
Investigators should bear in mind that, in some cases, offenders
may have visited the scene beforehand in order to plan the offence.
In addition, some offenders may return to the scene to witness the
consequences of their actions, for example, a person who has
committed an arson attack.
In cases where the crime could have been committed over a longer
period, investigators could set the parameters for the whole of the
period, which may involve viewing a large amount of material, or they
could focus the parameters on times when the crime was most likely to
1.4 Parameters
1: The Basics
have been committed. For example, in the case of theft from a vehicle
in a public car park, intelligence may indicate that other offences have
only occurred between specific times, or that there may be
circumstances, such as the presence of an attendant, which would
make it unlikely that the offence took place at certain times. Such
factors may enable the time parameters to be set more closely than
would otherwise be the case. In making such decisions, investigators
need to balance the risk of missing relevant information by not viewing
the whole of the CCTV material against the time they have available to
devote to this particular line of enquiry.
Where the investigator is relying on the goodwill of an independent
system owner to view and copy or acquire CCTV footage, the
investigator must be sensitive to the owners requirements. This may
mean providing the owner with a specific, and sometimes narrow,
timeframe within which to queue the footage in preparation for the
investigator to view, or it may mean arranging a return visit if they
are busy. If a return visit is required, investigators must ascertain what
the overwrite times are when arranging the return date and time, see
3.3 How to Establish the Overwrite Period.
1.4.2 Location Parameters
In many cases, the locations that are of interest to an investigator will
be obvious and will focus on the scene, together with access and exit
routes from it. As more material becomes available, it may be possible
to extend these original parameters to include such things as the route
an offender took home after an offence. This may in turn indicate
forensic opportunities relating to discarded items, or the location of
relevant vehicles.
Where it becomes important to test the accounts people give of their
movements before and after a crime, location parameters can be set to
include key locations they are known or believed to have been in.
1.4.3 Changing Parameters
Initial parameters will be based on the material to hand but are likely to
change as new information becomes available. Investigators should not
be afraid of making such changes when they are needed, but they
should bear in mind that some CCTV systems will only retain material
for relatively short periods of time, and images that are not gathered
quickly may be lost to the investigation.
Any changes to the parameters should be documented in full in the
CCTV strategy, along with detailed rationales and intelligence
evidencing the changes.
15
1: The Basics
16
Once the time and location parameters have been set, there should be
some consideration of the types of places from which footage can be
retrieved. Some of these are highlighted in Figure 2.
Investigators need to be aware of the wide variety of public and private
systems that may be in use in the locations within their parameters.
Some of these systems will be single cameras in retail premises, homes
and businesses, which will only be discovered by walking through the
area and making detailed enquiries to obtain contact details of those
who have practical knowledge on how to operate the system. It is good
practice to maintain a forcewide list of CCTV systems, owners and
engineers that is accessible to all force staff.
Investigators should also check to see if cameras sited inside premises
are focused on the doorway or window, thus catching images of
outside activity.
A record of the locations visited, and whether any CCTV could be
located, should be maintained to avoid duplication of effort should the
investigation be passed to another investigator. This will also enable
any premises that investigators could not access initially to be revisited
at a later date if required.
1.5 Locating CCTV
1: The Basics
Figure 2 CCTV Locations
Cash machines.
Trafc
management
agency.
Shopping
centres.
Local authority
control rooms.
Transport hubs
such as bus and
railway stations,
airports and
ferry terminals.
Police helmet
(head cams)
and car
cameras.
Local transport
(internal and
external
cameras), for
example, buses,
trains and taxis.
Police helicopter
cameras
(heli-teli).
Private
properties and
businesses.
Car parks. Petrol stations. Pubs and clubs.
Where can CCTV be located?
If there are several areas where trawls for CCTV will be made, it is
advisable to prioritise them, so that the ones most likely to be
productive are visited first.
1.6.1 Factors to Consider
Some factors investigators may wish to consider when prioritising which
CCTV systems to access first include the following:
Location of the offence;
Nature of the offence;
Major roads to or from the scene of the offence;
Travel routes taken by persons of interest to the investigation;
Areas frequented by persons of interest, for example, public
houses, homes of relatives, gyms;
Places of significant purchases linked to the investigation and
cash withdrawals;
Areas linked to telephone usage, including both landline and
mobile phones;
Areas linked to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) hits;
Retention period of systems;
Accessibility of systems, eg, business hours.
If the available resources mean that certain areas will not be visited for
some time, it may be possible to contact those controlling the CCTV
systems in those areas, eg, local authorities, garages and large business
premises, as well as agencies such as the Highways Agency, to request
them to retain material within the defined time parameters so that it
can be viewed later. This will ensure that material is available to view,
even if there is not time to visit all of the locations straightaway.
A request for the footage within known parameters can be made using
an appropriate form, see Appendix 3.
Where investigators need to delay the collection of footage, they
should ensure that they maintain contact with those holding the CCTV
material to update them on when collection will be. Every effort should
be made to do so as arranged, or let them know if the material is no
longer required.
1.6 Prioritising
Trawls
17
1: The Basics
1.7 Prioritising
Retrievals
18
1.7.1 Retrieving CCTV from Vehicles
If CCTV is to be retrieved from vehicles such as taxis, buses and trains, it
may be difficult to obtain the footage without the vehicle registration
mark (VRM) or other identifying feature (see 1.5 Locating CCTV).
There may, for example, be several number 10 buses or black cabs
passing through the same area in a short period of time. Furthermore,
in order to retrieve footage, vehicles may need to be taken off the road.
It is important that investigators do not place unrealistic demands on
transport operators that may sour relations in the future. Therefore, it is
strongly recommended that, prior to seeking CCTV footage from
transport companies, investigators consider using other sources of
CCTV or ANPR to establish the VRM before making requests for
footage. For information on retrieving footage and powers of seizure,
see 3 Viewing and Retrieving.
If footage from trains or rail property is to be retrieved, early contact
should be made with the British Transport Police (BTP) Head of CCTV,
who will make the necessary arrangements for the capture of images.
This may help to minimise the possibility of carriages from
one train ending up in completely different areas of the country.
Further information about BTP and CCTV can be found at
http://www.btp.police.uk/passengers/issues/cctv.aspx
1: The Basics
Legal
Responsibilities
Currently, there is no primary legislation specifically
controlling the use and publication of CCTV images.
This section identifies the legal and policy
frameworks within which CCTV footage should be
viewed, retrieved and managed as police information.
19
20
2: Legal Responsibilities
Contents
2.1 Legislation and Policy 21
2.2 The Data Protection Act 1998 21
2.3 The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 22
2.4 The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 22
2.5 The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 23
2.6 The Police Reform Act 2002 24
To use CCTV effectively, investigators should have a clear
understanding of relevant legislation, together with force and national
policy relating to its use.
The existing applicable legislation that encompasses the management
of evidence, including CCTV, comprises the following:
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001;
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA);
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE);
Police Reform Act 2002.
In addition, footage should be subject to robust processes and
procedures in accordance with:
ACPO (2005) Code of Practice on the Management of
Police Information;
ACPO (2010) Guidance on the Management of Police
Information, Second Edition;
ACPO (2007) Practice Advice on Police Use of Digital Images;
ACPO (2007) Good Practice Guide for Computer-Based
Electronic Evidence, [Official Release Version].
ACPO (2005) Code of Practice on the Management of Police
Information, Subsection 2.2 Information for Police Purposes states
that all information, including intelligence and personal data obtained
for police purposes, is referred to as police information. Images are a
form of police information.
Policing purposes are defined as:
Protecting life and property;
Preserving order;
Preventing the commission of offences;
Bringing offenders to justice;
Any duty or responsibility of the police arising from common or
statute law.
CCTV recording is covered by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) when
the information relates to a living individual who may be identified.
CCTV systems used in large shops, railway stations, town centres and
other places where large numbers of people gather are designed to
focus on particular people or to identify criminal activity and are
2.1 Legislation
and Policy
21
2.2 The Data
Protection Act
1998
22
covered by the DPA. When the police wish to view this type of CCTV,
the use of a Request for Disclosure of Personal Data under section 29(3)
of the DPA may be requested by the system owner or operator, see
Appendix 3. A DPA Request for Disclosure provides a means for the
police to obtain CCTV material and it allows data controllers (CCTV
operators) to disclose personal information to the police.
For further information on the DPA and use of images, see ACPO
(2007) Practice Advice on Police Use of Digital Images.
Part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 provides a power to
seize and sift which is not confined to PACE. One key purpose of the
legislation is that it enables investigators to remove material from
premises for examination elsewhere, for example when there is
insufficient time to conduct an effective examination on the premises,
or there is a need to use some special technical equipment which can
only be made available elsewhere.
Under the legislation, an entire computer disk or hard drive can be
seized and retained where it is necessary to prove when specific items
of information were created or amended.
The key issue is that the legislation allows the data (images) on the
computer hard drive or storage medium to be sorted through and
images removed that are evidentially relevant and can, therefore, be
seized in circumstances where a requirement under PACE section 20
would not be practicable. Application is subject to PACE Code B
paragraphs 7.7 to 7.13, which set out the additional rights of owners.
All these powers are accompanied by safeguards such as the ability to
apply to a judge for the return of material which has been seized and
restrictions on how seized material can be retained and used.
The powers are relevant to a wide range of circumstances, but they are
established on the principle that they can only be used where a person
could have exercised an existing power of seizure. All these existing
powers are listed in Schedule 1 of PACE.
For full details see Home Office Circular 019/23, Home Office (2003)
Guidance on operating the new powers of seizure in Part ll of The
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 available at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/home-office-
circulars/circulars-2003/019-2003/
The CPIA concerns the disclosure of what has been seized under
powers, and places a duty on the police to pursue all reasonable lines of
enquiry to obtain evidence. In conducting an investigation where the
inherent difficulties in retrieving footage from digital systems occur, the
CPIA Code of Practice paragraph 3.5 section 23(1) requires that
2.3 The Criminal
Justice and Police
Act 2001
2.4 The Criminal
Procedure and
Investigations
Act 1996
investigators do not simply dismiss potential sources of evidence
because, for example, footage may be difficult to extract from a system.
All reasonable attempts must be made to successfully retrieve the
images. This is underpinned by the powers and means to do so derived
from PACE and other legislation. Advice should be sought from senior
officers on what constitutes reasonable in the type of offence being
investigated if this is unclear.
It is critical that the Code of Practice issued under section 23(1) of the
CPIA is followed by all investigators. It sets out the manner in which
police officers are to record, retain and reveal to the prosecutor material
obtained in a criminal investigation that may be relevant to the
investigation and related matters. It states in paragraph 2.1 that:
Material may be relevant to an investigation if it
appears to an investigator, or to the officer in charge
of an investigation, or to the disclosure officer, that it
has some bearing on any offence under investigation
or any person being investigated, or on the surrounding
circumstances of the case, unless it is incapable of
having any impact on the case.
Section 5 of the Code also sets out a relevancy test to help determine
whether CCTV evidence should be retained and states how long
relevant material should be retained when the accused is convicted.
It applies to:
Obtaining and retaining CCTV material;
Disclosure of CCTV material in court;
Storage of CCTV material.
Failure to comply with this code may make evidence inadmissible.
For further information on the CPIA and the use of images, see
ACPO (2007) Practice Advice on Police Use of Digital Images.
CCTV material is owned by the person or organisation to which the
CCTV system that generated it belongs. Under PACE section 19, an
investigator who seeks entry to premises with the occupiers consent
must state the true purpose for seeking entry. If it is in order to view
CCTV images with the objective of determining their evidential value
and securing them for evidence, for example, by copying or seizing,
then this must be stated from the outset. The explanation should
include that replacement media will be provided and detail any other
steps that will be taken to minimise inconvenience to the occupier.
In a situation where an owner refuses access to the CCTV footage,
the power to seize depends on whether the investigator is lawfully on
the premises, ie, whether they have been invited on to the premises.
2.5 The Police and
Criminal Evidence
Act 1984
23
24
This invitation can be withdrawn at any time. Therefore, if and when an
investigator is refused the CCTV material and told to leave, the
invitation has been withdrawn and the investigator no longer has the
power of seizure. In this case an investigator will, in the first instance,
need to use their powers of negotiation and, as a last resort, apply for a
warrant under PACE section 8. This is only possible if the information
sought, ie, CCTV images, is not special procedure or excluded material
for the purposes of PACE sections 11 and 14.
Images captured by CCTV systems used for internal purposes, ie, inside
shops, railway stations and town centres (see 1.5 Locating CCTV), not
public space, and acquired during the course of business, are special
procedure material, ie, held in confidence. In order to obtain such
material without the owners consent, investigators will need to apply
for a production order or search warrant under section 9 and Schedule 1
of PACE, not section 8.
When equipment is seized, a receipt should be issued to the system
owner with details of the make, model and serial number. Investigators
do not have a right to seize anything that they have reasonable
grounds for believing is subject to legal privilege. This is set down in
PACE section 19(6).
Section 38(2) of the Police Reform Act 2002 gives provision for, and
governs, the designation of directly employed police authority staff as
investigating officers. This means that the power of seizure can be
granted to civilian staff by the chief constable of their force. This may
be useful in larger investigations when vast amounts of CCTV material
need to be retrieved quickly.
For full details, refer to section 38(2) and Schedule 4 of the Police
Reform Act 2002.
2.6 The Police
Reform Act 2002
Viewing and
Retrieving
This section focuses on viewing CCTV at the scene,
and how to retrieve footage that is relevant to an
investigation. Figures 3 and 4 give a summary of
the process to follow when retrieving analogue and
digital CCTV.
25
26
3: Viewing and Retrieving
Contents
3.1 Viewing CCTV at the Premises 27
3.1.1 The Presence of Victims or Witnesses 28
3.2 How to Note the Correct Time and Date on the 28
CCTV System
3.3 How to Establish the Overwrite Period 28
3.4 Retrieving CCTV from the Premises 29
3.5 How Much Footage Should be Retrieved? 30
3.6 Viewing the Retrieved Footage at the Premises 30
3.7 The Removal of CCTV Systems and Hard Drives 33
3.7.1 Physical Removal 33
3.8 Refusal of CCTV Owner to Allow Officers to View, 34
Retrieve or Remove CCTV Footage or System
Figures
Figure 3 Retrieval of Analogue CCTV 31
Figure 4 Retrieval of Digital CCTV 32
Figure 5 Physical Removal of the Recording Unit 34
Footage should be viewed at the scene to establish relevance prior to
seizure. Where system owners agree to provide access to the system for
onsite viewing, it is preferable that they, or someone familiar with the
system, operate the equipment under the direction of the investigator.
If neither the system owner nor the person in charge is familiar with the
operating system, the investigator should ascertain whether or not the
technical engineer, ie, the person who installed the system, is available
to assist. If this is not possible or the delay will be excessive, the
investigator should enquire whether there is an instruction manual
available. If the officer is confident and has the owners or agents
permission, they may operate the system, ensuring that they leave it in
its original state. Failing this, the investigator will need to seek advice
from their force technical CCTV specialist (FTCS).
In judging whether an image is relevant or not, investigators need to be
mindful of their obligations under the CPIA and should apply the
relevancy test contained in that Act. See 2.4 The Criminal Procedure
and Investigations Act 1996.
Examples of CCTV material which would pass the relevancy test include
CCTV which:
Captures the defendant committing the alleged offence;
Reveals that the wrong individual has been arrested for the
alleged offence;
Does not support the account given by the complainant and/or
witnesses, for example, mistaken identification;
Reveals the alleged complainant as the perpetrator (and
supports a defence of self-defence);
Shows that the parties are not captured on the video when, on
the eyewitness evidence, they should be (and there is no
suggestion of a technical fault and/or video overrun);
Reveals the demeanour of witnesses;
Captures the immediate aftermath of the alleged offence;
Reveals the actions of witnesses;
Reveals the crime scene;
Reveals potential witnesses.
If it is discovered that a CCTV system is of such poor quality that
footage cannot be downloaded, copied and/or properly viewed, it is
advised that a Crime Reduction or Crime Prevention Officer (CRO/CPO)
is informed.
3.1 Viewing CCTV
at the Premises
27
28
It is recommended that, where possible, investigators view the footage
on the originating system to check the quality of the footage and verify
colour capture as this may not be accurate on all CCTV systems. Colour
differences can be caused by incorrectly set cameras or by the use of
infrared (IR). Colours can also be misrepresented on specific
fabrics/materials and can be affected by environmental factors such as
the sun and street lamps. Any discrepancy should be noted, especially if
the item is to be used as evidence.
3.1.1 The Presence of Victims or Witnesses
Victims and other witnesses or potential witnesses to a crime should
not be present when investigators view CCTV material. This is especially
important if the witness has not yet made a statement, as it is
necessary to avoid any contamination of the witnesss memory. If
victims, witnesses or potential witnesses do happen to view the footage
before they make a witness statement, this must be recorded in their
statement. This is most likely to happen where the victim is the owner
of the CCTV system; particular care should be taken in these situations.
Before viewing the CCTV images, it is important to establish if the time
and date displayed by the system is accurate. The time and date that
the suspect appeared, or that the crime occurred, will be crucial when
trying to piece together evidence. CCTV equipment is rarely changed to
take into account differences between Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)
and British Standard Time (BST). In addition, some systems can simply
display the wrong time and date. The actual time and date of the
footage must be checked or timings may be inaccurate. The best way
to ensure that timings and dates are correct is to compare the current
time and date shown on the CCTV system with a known, reliable source,
eg, the speaking clock (dial 123). Investigators should then make a note
of the two times and dates and the difference between them.
Investigators must not change the systems time or date.
It is essential that investigators note the overwrite period of the CCTV
system so that they are aware of how much time they have to extract
images before they are irretrievably lost.
It is not enough to simply ask the owner what the overwrite period is.
An estimation of the overwrite time can be obtained by viewing the
earliest footage saved on the system. The number of days between the
date of the earliest recorded material and the date of attendance is a
guide to the overwrite period. If there are gaps in the recording, or
where there is protected data on the system, this can give a false
impression of the apparent overwrite time. Investigators should not
leave this check until the last minute, otherwise the system may begin
to overwrite.
3.2 How to Note
the Correct Time
and Date on the
CCTV System
3.3 How to
Establish the
Overwrite Period
When investigators find relevant CCTV footage, they should make
appropriate notes. If the investigator attending believes the footage is
of no relevance, they must record the reasons why they chose not to
retrieve the footage in their pocket book, together with the name of the
system searched, the objectives, time and location parameters and the
name of the person operating the system.
Force policies should make it clear who is responsible for retrieving and
replacing media and equipment in the event of it being required as
evidence. This may vary depending on the severity of the crime.
Analogue footage should not be copied at the scene. Investigators are
advised to simply remove the relevant VHS tape, break the record tab to
prevent accidental erasure or overwriting, label and bag it.
Depending on the type of VHS tape used, there are two methods that
can be employed to avoid accidentally recording over footage:
1. If the VHS tape is held ready for insertion into a video cassette
recorder (VCR), the record tab appears on the left-hand side of
the back end of the VHS tape. Break this tab off. This will leave
a hole that prevents the recording of any further footage.
2. If there is no record tab, a small shutter will be seen instead.
This shutter should be opened to prevent further recording.
Whenever possible, a blank replacement VHS tape should be provided.
It is recommended that, where practicable, footage believed to be
relevant should be exported from digital systems rather than seizing
the whole system. This should only be considered as a last resort.
See 3.7 The Removal of CCTV Systems and Hard Drives.
The same principles discussed in 3.1 Viewing CCTV at the Premises
apply to retrieval in relation to competency to operate the system,
exclusion of witnesses and sources of advice.
If the CCTV service provider is to be contacted for help, investigators
need to be aware of the potential cost implications of this. In addition,
investigators should bear in mind that the competency of these
agencies cannot be measured, and that their employees may not be
aware of evidential requirements. If the CCTV service provider is unable
to assist, investigators should contact their FTCS for help.
In order to replay exported footage, special replay software may be
required. Sometimes when footage is exported, replay software is
automatically downloaded. In other cases, however, investigators may
need to obtain the relevant replay software from the manufacturers
website or other source. Some forces may have CCTV viewing software
available to them. Attempting to view the footage on a laptop at the
3.4 Retrieving
CCTV from the
Premises
29
30
premises can help investigators decide whether the replay software has
been automatically downloaded. See 3.1 Viewing CCTV at the Premises
and 3.6 Viewing Retrieved Footage at the Premises.
If footage is to be retrieved from places that are not privately owned,
such as local authorities and transport companies, the retrieval will
usually be carried out by employees of those organisations. Much of
the success of this type of retrieval, therefore, relies on good working
relationships with these organisations. This is particularly relevant to
the FTCS as regular liaison with these agencies can ensure that they
have the appropriate technical equipment available if a major incident
occurs. This can help to ensure adequate cooperation and the prompt
retrieval of images. See also 9.6 Post Trial.
If a very large amount of footage is required, a local authority or other
non-police organisation submitting the images may charge for the time
it takes to download. This is something that needs to be discussed
before the download process begins. The FTCS may be able to assist in
providing consumables such as hard disk drives (HDDs) for mass export
purposes. A payment may also need to be made to any installers who
are required to download footage from larger or complex digital CCTV
systems. Note: Third party engineers will not be evidentially aware.
If non-police organisations download footage, they will be required to
complete a continuity statement, preferably at the time of retrieval. See
5.2 Continuity Statements. In addition, if images have been captured
by proactive CCTV operators, for example, if they have taken action as
a result of a phone call or have received information via an Airwave
terminal, they may have made original notes at the time of the
incident. These notes should also be retrieved along with the CCTV
product, where possible.
Before an investigator leaves the premises, it is advisable that all
retrieved CCTV footage is viewed briefly and checked to confirm that
the images have exported correctly, and also that the relevant cameras
and timescales have been captured. Investigators should bear in mind
that when a DVD is searched in the fast forward mode, at a given
speed, individual frames/pictures are skipped. See 6.1 Validation.
Where investigators are unable to export the footage at the scene,
they should seek advice from the FTCS.
CCTV systems do not usually have the facility to view exported footage.
Where investigators have access to laptops, they will be able to view
digital footage at the scene. Alternatively, premises are likely to have
computers that can be used. If this is unsuccessful, investigators should
ensure that the correct overwrite period, together with the make and
model of the system, is noted, before taking the copy to the police
station for verification. If investigators are still unable to verify that the
3.5 How Much
Footage Should be
Retrieved?
3.6 Viewing the
Retrieved Footage
at the Premises
footage has copied successfully, it may be appropriate to seek advice
from the FTCS.
In any event, the footage should be viewed at the police station as soon
as is practicable.
If the CCTV owner refuses the investigating officer access to the CCTV system
and/or the footage, the officer should refer to 2 Legal Responsibilities.
31
Is the material
relevant?
Secure the VHS
tape as evidence.
Finish and pursue
other lines of
enquiry.
Check time and
date of system.
Take the VHS tape
and break off the
record tab.
Play the tape in the
machine.
Make appropriate
notes.
Do not pause or
repeatedly play
material.
Make a note as to
why it is not relevant.
If there are
problems with the
CCTV system, eg,
poor image quality,
inform the CRO.
Figure 3 Retrieval of Analogue CCTV
Yes No
32
Figure 4 Retrieval of Digital CCTV
Is the material
relevant?
Check time and
date of system.
View the material
on the system.
Make appropriate
notes.
Make a note as to
why it is not relevant.
If there are
problems with the
CCTV system, eg,
poor image quality,
inform the CRO.
Contact FTCS for
assistance before
the hard drive is
overwritten.
Finish and pursue
other lines of
enquiry.
Can the owner
make an exact
copy of the footage
onto DVD or CD?
Can the ofcer
make an exact
copy of the footage
onto DVD or CD?
Can owner contact
service provider for
assistance?
Copy material onto
DVD or CD.
Verify the material
has copied.
Has the copying
process adversely
affected the
quality?
Secure the DVD/CD
as evidence.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
3.7 The Removal of
CCTV Systems and
Hard Drives
33
Force policy and standard operating procedures should give clear
direction on the removal of CCTV systems and hard drives. A damaged
system may not only jeopardise a potential conviction, but may also
cause a force to incur huge compensation costs. In addition,
investigators may be exposed to electrical safety hazards if, for
example, they remove equipment lids or unplug connections.
Before a CCTV system or hard drive is removed, the agreement of several
parties may be required. Firstly, the owner must agree, otherwise the
system will need to be seized, see 3.8 Refusal of CCTV Owner to Allow
Officers to View, Retrieve or Remove CCTV Footage or System.
Secondly, it is good practice to provide the owner with a replacement
system or hard drive, see 3.7.1 Physical Removal. Investigators will need to
confirm with the FTCS that there are suitable replacements available.
Finally, investigators should be aware that any additional costs for removal
of a system will have to come out of the funds allocated to the
investigation. These costs may include payment to external contractors to
remove a system or the cost of buying additional replacement systems.
As with all evidence retrieval, a continuity statement should be
completed. See 5.2 Continuity Statements.
3.7.1 Physical Removal
As a last resort, if an FTCS is unavailable to assist, the investigator may
need to remove the recording unit. This will require the investigator to
follow Figure 5.
When a hard drive or entire CCTV system is removed, the owner should
receive a replacement system so that their premises are not left
unprotected. See 3.7 The Removal of CCTV Systems and Hard Drives.
This is particularly relevant for banks and post offices, where there is a
risk that further offences could be committed. Additionally, there may be
insurance and licensing considerations that will prevent the premises
from operating without CCTV. In all investigations, the cost implications
of this should be considered before investigators begin to trawl.
If resources restrict the number of replacement systems available, there
may be a need to arrange additional police resources, for example, foot
or car patrols, subject to an appropriate risk and proportionality
assessment. Local authorities can also be asked to direct their cameras
towards the premises to offer some form of protection to the owners.
3.8 Refusal of
CCTV Owner to
Allow Officers to
View, Retrieve or
Remove CCTV
Footage or System
34
To help expedite the acquisition and avoid loss of any CCTV footage,
the first responding officer will find that negotiation rather than use of
statutory powers is more likely to have the desired outcome.
As a last resort, if the owner refuses to allow officers to view, retrieve or
remove CCTV footage, consideration should be given to the issue of a
section 66 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA)
retention notice. Although this is not CCTV specific, once served and a
copy retained, it can help to provide evidence in support of an attempt
to pervert the course of justice if the footage has been allowed to
overwrite or has been disposed of. See Appendix 4.
1. Check date and
time.
6. Remove leads.
4. Power-off
system.
5. Label leads.
8. Leave contact
details.
7. Remove system.
Figure 5 Physical Removal of the Recording Unit
2. Menu shutdown?
Yes
No
1. Before changing any settings, check the time and date against the speaking clock or similar.
2. Is there a menu option to shut down the DVR? If so, activate it and follow any instructions given.
3. If there is no menu option to shut down the DVR, stop the DVR recording (software or hardware).
This is usually a button marked with a white square.
4. Wait at least 30 seconds after step 2 or 3 above, then turn off the power to the machine using
either a switch on the machine (if present) or by switching off or removing the plug from the wall.
5. If at all possible, label the leads connected to the machine; this can be done with white tape or
sellotape and paper.
6. Carefully remove the leads from the system, retaining any connectors that come loose. If the
unit has an external power supply, this must be retained as well.
7. Ideally, place the system in a protected box and then in an evidence bag or otherwise suitably
secure transport medium.
8. Ensure contact details are left with the venue for information regarding replacement/return.
3. Stop recording.
Post Retrieval
This section looks at the creation of copies of CCTV
footage, editing the footage and ways of dealing
with poor-quality images.
35
36
4: Post Retrieval
Contents
4.1 The Creation of Master and Working Copies 37
4.2 The Creation of Working Copies from VHS Tapes 37
4.3 Sending Footage to the FTCS for Editing 38
4.4 Poor-Quality Images 38
Figures
Figure 6 Basic CCTV Locating, Copying and Retrieval Process 39
In small and/or uncomplicated investigations, it is advisable to have a
master copy and a working copy of every piece of footage retrieved. This
may become impractical in larger investigations, but one solution is to
use a secure server for the storage of master evidence. Attempts should
be made to make a working copy from the master when critical evidence
or intelligence is identified, or when technical issues require it. If no copy
can be made, investigators should ensure the integrity of the master and
protect it from being altered. Transport media such as USB pen drives
can be used to transport larger amounts of CCTV footage but are not
themselves used as exhibits. The footage on the transport media will be
copied to write once, read many (WORM) media, eg, CD-R or DVD-R disc,
and then exhibited. See Home Office (2007) Digital Imaging
Procedure, Version 2.1 November 2007 58/07 available from
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100413151426/http://scienceandresea
rch.homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb/publications/cctv-
publications/DIP_2.1_16-Apr-
08_v2.3_(Web)47aa.html?view=Standard&pubID=555512
Investigators will also need to determine whether or not copying the
footage has adversely affected the quality of the working copies. A loss in
video or image quality is acceptable if there is no loss in evidential quality.
For example, a man wearing a black and white striped shirt is seen to
commit an offence. If copying or converting the footage changes the
black part of the shirt to appear grey then this may be acceptable if he
does not dispute that the person in the footage is him. If he disputes the
fact, then a loss in video quality would not be acceptable.
The copying of VHS tapes must often be done in real time and can be
very time-consuming. Investigators may, therefore, wish to create a
working copy of the footage and store the master. When making this
decision, there are several points that investigators should consider:
Although VHS is quite a robust format, pausing the tape at
the same place can degrade the image.
If working copies are to be made, investigators should bear in
mind the practicalities of this, especially if there are many tapes
to copy. Proportionality and resource implications should,
therefore, be considered.
It is important for investigators to consider whether the
analogue footage will be copied onto another VHS tape or
converted into digital format. Converting footage into digital
format may mean that footage is easier to edit and copy. It
may also be the most practical option for court purposes and for
long-term storage. However, it can also cause a marked drop in
image quality, which is a cause for concern. Problematically,
investigative decisions may then be made on the basis of
inferior evidence. See 4.1 The Creation of Master and
Working Copies.
4.1 The Creation
of Master and
Working Copies
37
4: Post Retrieval
4.2 The Creation
of Working Copies
from VHS Tapes
38
If the analogue footage is multiplexed, ie, it displays footage
from more than one camera at the same time, it is advised that
the footage is demultiplexed. The master can be split and
individual data extracted using software commonly called a file
splitter. This is something that the FTCS may be able to assist
with. The demultiplexed footage becomes a new master exhibit.
Depending on the circumstances of the offence and force policy, the
footage may need to be edited or copied by the FTCS. If this is the case,
once the CCTV is retrieved, a note should be taken of the camera
number and the exact time that the relevant images appear. This will
aid the FTCS and avoid requiring them to watch half an hour of footage
in order to spot ten minutes of relevant images. A description of what
to look for is also helpful, for example, white man wearing a red
sweater entering premises. Investigators should bear in mind,
however, that poor-quality footage may cause ambiguity regarding
the description.
Investigators will need to ascertain whether or not the data has
changed. If it has, then it is a new exhibit. If, however, only the
container has changed, it is not. For example, the file theft.avi is
converted to theft.mpg; the video footage is the same but the data
itself is different. This is a new exhibit. If, on the other hand, theft.avi
was on a USB flash memory device and copied to a CD-Rom (WORM
media), as per Home Office (2007) Digital Imaging Procedure,
Version 2.1 November 2007 58/07 and Home Office (2008)
Retrieval of Video Evidence and Production of Working Copies
from Digital CCTV Systems, Version 2.0 publication number 66-08,
then theft.avi has not changed, just the medium that it is stored on and
it is, therefore, a copy of the original exhibit.
Any format conversion or data changing should be carried out by an
FTCS or other skilled department. A person tasked with carrying out this
role should be able to explain what they have done to a court.
CCTV image enhancement is extremely limited and is not possible in the
majority of cases, beyond the basic adjustment of brightness or contrast.
Images are made up of a series of pixels, which are digital squares.
Each square has a colour and when placed together, they make an
image. In basic terms, if a suspects face or vehicle registration plate is
blurred so that it is only possible to see colour with no definition, this
usually means that there are not enough squares to give the resolution
needed for a sharper, clearer image.
If unsure, investigators are advised to seek advice from the FTCS.
See also 4.1 The Creation of Master and Working Copies.
4.4 Poor-Quality
Images
4: Post Retrieval
4.3 Sending
Footage to the
FTCS for Editing
Figure 6 Basic CCTV Locating, Copying and Retrieval Process
39
4: Post Retrieval
Check other
premises for CCTV.
Pursue other lines
of enquiry.
Or break tab and
retain tape.
Finish/pursue further
lines of enquiry.
Incident reported. Start enquiry.
No
Do premises have
CCTV?
Yes
Digital. Analogue.
View the tape in
the machine.
View the footage
on the system.
Relevant footage?
No Yes
Check and make a
note of systems
time and date.
Copy onto a
portable format or
retrieve whole or
part of system.
Verify copy is
usuable.
No
Has copying
adversely affected
quality?
Yes
Make a note of the video sequence start
and nish times and any other details
lost, or contact FTCS for assistance.
Bag the videotape,
CD or DVD as
evidence.
40
4: Post Retrieval
Exhibits
CCTV footage can be compelling evidence against
an offender at trial. It is therefore imperative that a
robust audit trail is in place which documents the
movements of CCTV products. This is particularly
relevant when a CCTV product becomes an exhibit
and when the reviewing process begins.
41
42
5: Exhibits
Contents
5.1 CCTV Exhibits 43
5.2 Continuity Statements 43
5.3 Maintaining Continuity and Integrity of Exhibits 43
All CCTV exhibits coming into the possession of the investigator should
be recorded to show:
The name of the officer who collected the footage;
From where the footage was retrieved;
When the footage was retrieved, including GMT-corrected time,
as well as the system time (this greatly assists in creating
sequences of relevant events);
What period of time the footage covers;
The overwrite period;
The exhibit number.
Exhibits must be stored safely and should be logged both in and out of
storage. Force policy on exhibits should always be referred to.
The person who retrieves the footage from the CCTV system will need
to complete a statement to ensure the continuity of the evidence.
This person could be the owner of the system, a police officer or an
FTCS. The statement need only contain the details of what the person
did to retrieve the footage. This may be just a few sentences, outlining
the date, time and how the person copied or exported the footage,
eg, downloaded the images onto a DVD. Many forces have pro forma
MG11 forms, specifically designed for this type of situation, which can
be quickly filled in at the premises. Any discrepancies between the time
shown on the CCTV system and the actual time of the footage
should also be noted in the statement. See 3.2 How to Note the
Correct Time and Date on the CCTV Footage and 3.3 How to
Establish the Overwrite Period.
CDs and DVDs are damaged by light and heat and should be kept in a
hard CD or DVD case. Suitable storage cases include clams, ejectors and
jewel cases. There should be one CD/DVD per case to avoid the discs
being scratched and damaged. Labels should not be stuck on discs, nor
should they be written on with a ballpoint pen. Discs should be labelled
using a multimedia marker pen, not a general permanent marker. It is
good practice to mark the disc with identifiable/unique features, such
as exhibit numbers, the source location for the disc creation, date and
copy number. Such marking identifies the specific disc against any
additional copies created.
CDs and DVDs should be stored in a way that proves the integrity of the
product and also shows that it has not been subject to any
unauthorised access.
Transport media, such as pen drives, flash drives and CD-RWs/DVD-RWs
are not suitable for long-term storage and data should be copied onto
5.1 CCTV Exhibits
43
5: Exhibits
5.2 Continuity
Statements
5.3 Maintaining
Continuity and
Integrity of
Exhibits
44
WORM media as soon as reasonably practicable. See Home Office
(2007) Digital Imaging Procedure, Version 2.1 November 2007
58/07 available at
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100413151426/http://scienceandrese
arch.homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb/publications/cctv-
If there is a need to keep the media for other evidential opportunities,
eg, fingerprints, they can be stored in a suitable evidence bag.
Hard drives are fragile devices. If they are to be stored, they should
ideally be kept in appropriate shock resistant packaging and stored
away from magnetic sources and high voltage mains or equipment.
Individual boxes or hard cases should be used with anti-static bags.
The protective packaging in which hard drives are bought is also
suitable and can be reused. Only one hard drive should be stored in
each box. Putting more than one in the same packaging may result in
the drives being damaged.
5: Exhibits
Viewing CCTV
This section provides advice on viewing seized
CCTV material.
45
46
6: Viewing CCTV
Contents
6.1 Validation 47
6.2 Visiting the Location of the Incident 47
6.3 Viewing Conditions 47
6.4 Viewing Parameters 48
6.5 Reference Images 48
6.6 Viewing Logs 48
The purpose of viewing seized material is to identify that which is of use
to the investigation and document it so that it can be used as evidence
or intelligence. CCTV exhibits should be assessed and a documented
decision made about whether to undertake a detailed viewing or simply
retain them. It is good practice to summarise at an early stage what can
be seen in the footage that will be produced for the Crown Prosecution
Service (CPS). This will enable a charging decision to be made.
Once material has been seized, it should be viewed as soon as possible.
This ensures that time is not wasted collecting huge amounts of footage
when early viewing may have taken the investigation in a different
direction or highlighted other investigative opportunities. In addition, any
potential problems with the data that may have been missed when
viewing took place at the premises can be identified. When checking,
investigators should bear in mind that when a DVD is searched in the fast
forward mode, at a given speed, individual frames/pictures are skipped.
See 3.6 Viewing the Retrieved Footage at the Premises.
Viewing will often be simply a case of confirming what has already
been identified during the initial viewing and documenting it.
In cases where the location has not been visited, investigators viewing
footage may find it beneficial to visit the areas from where the CCTV
images were taken. This will help viewers familiarise themselves with the
relevant locations and visualise where events have taken place. The
advantage of this is that viewers may then find it easier to piece
together routes taken by vehicles or persons of interest. It also means
that the footage is viewed in the context of the area as a whole.
Another option is to use an online map that has a street view function.
This will allow the investigating officer to see an area from ground level
and help them to develop situational awareness of the scene. If any of
the above methods are used, the procedure must be included in
subsequent statements the investigator makes.
Layout plans of premises showing the coverage of each CCTV camera
can also be useful. This is particularly the case when suspects and
witnesses move around a large building, such as a licensed premises,
which could have a number of cameras. The layout plan will assist the
viewing officer to change cameras and follow an individual.
Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, chief officers have a
responsibility to ensure the health and safety of their employees. Health
and Safety Executive (2009) Striking the balance between
operational and health and safety duties in the Police Service sets
out clear expectations of how the Police Service will apply health and
safety legislation in challenging operational environments. This document
is available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/services/police/duties.pdf
6.1 Validation
47
6: Viewing CCTV
6.2 Visiting the
Location of the
Incident
6.3 Viewing
Conditions
48
Viewing CCTV images for the purpose of analysis can be demanding,
especially where there is a large amount of footage that needs to be
analysed. Sustained viewing should, therefore, take place in areas that
have appropriate lighting and ventilation, and limited distractions.
Given the difficulty of maintaining concentration for long periods of time,
viewers should take regular breaks. Breaks should be taken away from the
viewing area and computer screen. Viewers should consider going outside the
building to refresh themselves and to allow their eyes to focus on other things.
As with retrieval, viewing parameters and priorities should be set and
these should be based on information and evidence already received.
If multiple staff are tasked with viewing footage of the same crime,
advice should be sought from the FTCS in relation to various strategies
for managing this.
It may be useful to have reference images to hand as a reminder to
viewers of what they should be looking for. This could, for example, be a
photograph of the suspects vehicle or a distinctive item of clothing. If this
method is to be employed, caution should be taken if the area is open to
members of the public or other non-members of the investigation.
A viewing log should always be completed when viewing CCTV.
An example of this is available in Appendix 5.
Viewing logs should:
Document what has been seen in the footage;
Describe the actions of individuals (especially victims and
suspects) in a neutral manner.
Emotive language such as viciously or unprovoked should be avoided.
Defence solicitors may apply to view unused and unviewed footage.
If all relevant CCTV images have been viewed and the viewing logs
completed, this will reduce the risk of defence solicitors discovering
further relevant footage from CCTV that officers have not viewed.
It is strongly recommended that supervisors quality assure the work
of viewers by, for example, spot checking viewed footage and logs.
6.4 Viewing
Parameters
6: Viewing CCTV
Viewers able to present a comprehensive reconstruction or
interpretation of an incident from extensive review and analysis of
CCTV images and other material, such as photographs taken at
the scene and the time of the crime, should be aware that they
may be called to give evidence in court as ad hoc expert witnesses.
See Appendix 2.
6.5 Reference
Images
6.6 Viewing Logs
Using CCTV as an
Investigative Tool
This section covers identification and recognition of
persons from CCTV footage. It must be read in
conjunction with Code D to the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 and Annexes A and E.
49
50
7: Using CCTV as an Investigative Tool
Contents
7.1 Ways in Which CCTV Can Assist an Investigation 51
7.2 The Dissemination of CCTV Evidence 51
7.2.1 Dissemination to Police Personnel 52
7.2.2 Dissemination to External Partners 52
7.2.3 Dissemination to Covert Human Intelligence 53
Sources (CHIS)
7.2.4 Poster Campaigns 53
7.2.5 Dissemination to the Media 54
7.3 Third-Party Images 54
7.4 Identification Versus Recognition 54
7.4.1 Eyewitnesses 56
7.4.2 Suspect Is Known to the Police 56
7.4.3 Suspect Is not Known to the Police 56
7.4.4 Obtaining Recognition Evidence from Witnesses 57
7.4.5 Group Viewing of CCTV Images 59
7.4.6 Controlled Viewing of CCTV Following a Request 59
from an Investigating Officer
7.5 Specialist Methods Used to Identify Suspects 60
7.6 Research and Intelligence to Confirm the Identity 60
of an Individual
7.7 The Use of Social Networking Sites 60
Figures
Figure 7 Recognition Triggers 55
There are a number of ways in which CCTV can assist an investigation.
It can, for example:
Show the offence and reflect its nature and severity;
Help to identify the suspect and others who were present at
the time the offence was committed, who may be witnesses
or co-offenders;
Lead to recognition by non-witnesses where the identity of
someone in an image is unknown. This will then enable
enquiries to focus on gathering further evidence against them
by other means, such as searching their homes, and enable
identification procedures under Code D of PACE 1984 to be
carried out by eyewitnesses.
Show inconsistencies in witness and suspect accounts;
Help to identify other investigative opportunities, such as:
Forensic opportunities resulting from actions captured in
the image or clothing worn or weapons used which can be
recovered for examination, eg, a discarded cigarette;
Location of discarded property;
Tracking the movements of offenders and witnesses to
and from the scene by capturing them on different CCTV
systems, which may provide improved images that make
it easier to identify the individual, associates or clothing,
as well as identifying locations that may be of interest.
In the early stages of an investigation, the priority will be to identify the
offender(s) responsible for the commission of the offence. However,
when viewing footage, investigators should regard all persons depicted
on the CCTV material as potential witnesses. The CCTV images may
also show that there are co-offenders, whch is another reason why it is
important to view a reasonable period of time on either side of the
actual offence.
In any case, the investigator will need to identify as many persons in
the CCTV material as is practicable. To achieve this, it is extremely likely
that some of the CCTV images obtained will need to be disseminated.
To ensure optimum exposure and use of resources, the following staged
approach is recommended:
Dissemination to police personnel;
Dissemination to partner agencies;
Poster campaign;
Dissemination to the media, including Crimestoppers Most Wanted.
7.1 Ways in Which
CCTV Can Assist an
Investigation
51
7.2 The
Dissemination of
CCTV Evidence
52
Investigators should refer to their force policy in relation to the release
of CCTV images. Exhibited images must have an audit trail back to the
original CCTV exhibit they came from prior to publication.
If the intention is to obtain evidence of recognition from the
dissemination of CCTV images, it is important that the correct
procedures are adhered to. See 7.4.4 Obtaining Recognition
Evidence from Witnesses.
7.2.1 Dissemination to Police Personnel
There are several ways in which police personnel may view CCTV
images for recognition purposes. The first is via a mass circulation of
images, for example, on the force intranet. A second (much less
common) method includes group viewings of images, for example,
at briefings (see 7.4.5 Group Viewing of CCTV Images). In addition,
an investigator may ask staff to view images if it is believed that they
may have information regarding the identity of the person portrayed in
the footage. This information may, for example, be based on personal
dealings with the suspect or with previous investigations carried out in
that particular area.
7.2.2 Dissemination to External Partners
Depending on the offence under investigation, circulating images to
police partners, such as those shown below, may assist.
Members of Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs), formerly
known as Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs),
such as:
Police and criminal justice agencies;
Council services;
Children and young peoples agencies;
Health services;
Community and voluntary sector;
Neighbourhood Watch;
Local authority control rooms.
Other law enforcement agencies, such as:
UK Border Agency;
HM Revenue and Customs.
Using publications such as the Police Gazette to disseminate images to
the police and police partners is also a useful method.
7.2.3 Dissemination to Covert Human Intelligence
Sources (CHIS)
In some circumstances it may be necessary to allow a CHIS to view a still
image or section of CCTV footage. Investigators will need to follow force
procedures and liaise with the designated force officer or authorising
officer. For further information see ACPO, HMRC and SOCA (2009)
Guidance on the Lawful and Effective Use of Covert Techniques
Legal Framework and Covert Operational Management
[RESTRICTED] and ACPO (2009) Guidance on the Lawful and
Effective Use of Covert Techniques - Local Volume Crime and
Disorder [RESTRICTED].
7.2.4 Poster Campaigns
Before a poster campaign is launched, investigators should carefully
consider the information to include. No information should be included
that could jeopardise a fair trial or violate the human rights of the
individuals in the images. There must be a legitimate purpose, which is
necessary and proportionate, to release an image. The way in which it
is released must also be proportionate. The more serious the offence,
the easier it will be to justify the way it is released, but if, for example,
it is in relation to an incident of anti-social behaviour or to identify a
group of underage drinkers, this may not be seen as proportionate.
ACPO (2009) Guidance on the Release of Images of Suspects
and Defendants recommends that, even for relatively minor offences,
the release of an image can still be proportionate if one of the
following is present:
National interest;
Vulnerable victims;
Prevalent local crime;
Community interest.
There are several benefits to a poster campaign. It publicises to
criminals that CCTV is monitored. This is particularly relevant if, for
example, posters are put up in the shopping centre where the offence
took place. In addition, it shows offenders that there is a consequence
to their actions. This can be most effective if posters are displayed in
places where they are likely to be seen by offenders, including
fingerprint rooms and cells within police stations. A poster campaign
also helps build public confidence, highlighting that the police are
working hard to fight crime.
In order to prevent posters remaining on display indefinitely, it is good
practice to include a date (eg, in three months time) on the poster to
indicate when it should be removed, either by the person(s) displaying
53
54
the poster on behalf of the police or by local officers on patrol.
7.2.5 Dissemination to the Media
When deciding whether an image should be released to the media, the
considerations outlined in 7.2.4 Poster Campaigns are relevant. The
same points will need to be considered to ensure that the release of
images complies with the law. The extent of the coverage required will
depend on the circumstances of the offence. There are, however, many
options available to investigators who wish to circulate images to the
media and the public at large. The following is a list of possibilities:
Local and national newspapers;
Local, national and international news;
Force website;
Crimestoppers Most Wanted;
Crimewatch.
If the investigator decides to use a blanket poster/media approach to
seek recognition of an unknown suspect, they will need to plan and
implement a coordinated approach comprising circulation to internal
and related bodies, and public dissemination tools, including
Crimestoppers Most Wanted.
Whichever method(s) investigators prefer to use, they should be aware
of the rights of third parties depicted in the footage before any images
are released. Images of both third parties and VRMs are considered
personal data under the DPA. In addition, diclosure of third-party
images may violate their right to respect for private and family life as
set down in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is
advised, therefore, that before any images are released, images of third
parties and other personal data are blurred out. This is something that
the FTCS should be able to assist with.
An eyewitness identifying an offender is often the turning point in an
investigation, forming an important element of a prosecutions case.
There can be confusion about the difference between recognition and
identification. Although the main aim of disseminating CCTV images is
to identify an offender, identification is actually a formal legal
procedure that draws on a combination of established procedures. This
includes the use of competent eyewitnesses, who are likely to become
key witnesses for the prosecution. It tests their ability to identify a
person suspected of committing the offence under investigation as the
person they saw on a previous occasion, through the use of an identity
parade, video identification or similar procedure.
Recognition is where someone who is not an eyewitness to the offence
7.3 Third-Party
Images
7.4 Identification
Versus Recognition
under investigation claims to recognise someone depicted in an image
who is well known to them. This is usually what investigators are hoping
to achieve through circulation of CCTV images. See 7.1 Ways in Which
CCTV Can Assist an Investigation.
A successful suspect recognition process can trigger other investigative
options for investigators. They can then gather a chain of evidence (see
Figure 7) leading to, and in support of, the formal identification
procedure. In the absence of other supporting evidence, evidence of
recognition in itself can be adduced in evidence providing it is gathered
in a robust manner that is open to scrutiny.
Where a suspect is recognised by a member of the public, following a
poster campaign, the investigator can search national, regional and
local databases for any intelligence or information already held on that
subject. This in turn can trigger the Trace Interview Eliminate (TIE)
process. It may also point the investigator to forensic or scientific
evidence, or lead to additional, corroborating CCTV material. All of this
will help to bring the investigation to the formal identification
procedures. Evidential material pertaining to the identification, or
recognition, of a suspect is considered to be very valuable by the courts,
but the integrity of the process by which it has been produced must be
robust and withstand the tests and scrutiny that it will need to undergo
in order for the courts to accept it.
Figure 7 Recognition Triggers
55
R v Smith and others [2008] EWCA Crim 1342 illustrates
recognition, see Appendix 2. For a full explanation of
identification procedures, see PACE (1984) Code D.
Scientic services. Research. Witness trawl.
Identication procedure.
Vehicle enquiry.
Eliminate. Interview. Search. Further CCTV.
Recognition.
56
7.4.1 Eyewitnesses
The eyewitness identification procedures in Part A of section 3 of Code
D of PACE 1984 should not be used to test whether a witness can
recognise a person as someone they know. In these cases, the
procedures in Part B apply.
7.4.2 Suspect Is Known to the Police
Section 3 of Code D of PACE 1984, Identification by Witnesses,
together with Annexes A and E, provides guidelines for conducting
identification procedures.
If the identity of the suspect is known to the police, and the suspect is
available to take part in a formal identification procedure,
arrangements must be made in accordance with Code D of PACE 1984.
An eyewitness must not be shown photographs, including CCTV,
computerised or artists composite likenesses or pictures (including E-FIT
images), prior to a formal identification procedure. It is essential that
where there are images of the offender or a suspect, witnesses must not
be able to see them or be given any other indication as to the suspects
identity before making a formal identification under Code D of PACE
1984. If the court learns that the attention of any one of the witnesses
has been drawn to any images of the suspect before formal
identification, it may consider the identification evidence unreliable, and
exclude it on the basis that the witnesses might have been influenced by
seeing the image.
7.4.3 Suspect Is not Known to the Police
Under certain circumstances, a victim may view CCTV footage
providing that the suspect is unknown to the police. This is outlined in R
v Johnson [1996] Crim LR 504, see Appendix 2. All other reasonable
enquiries to identify the suspect must have been exhausted prior to a
victim viewing the images.
When introducing CCTV footage to eyewitnesses, care must be taken to
avoid allegations of contaminating the memory of the witnesses
involved. Consequently, it is advised that eyewitnesses to an incident
are not shown CCTV footage unless there is a real ambiguity that the
investigating officer needs to clarify. This may be required should the
victim need to point themselves out or if the offence location needs to
be confirmed (for example, if the scene was crowded). If eyewitnesses
are shown CCTV footage, the defence could argue that the witness is
only remembering what they saw on the CCTV footage and not what
they witnessed during the offence. If eyewitnesses are to be shown
footage, this should be done after they have made their initial witness
statement, and a record subsequently made of that viewing.
7.4.4 Obtaining Recognition Evidence from
Witnesses
In the absence of any eyewitness evidence, for example if the victim
did not see the offenders face but it was captured on CCTV,
recognition evidence from any non-eyewitnesses via television images
may be used. When staff view CCTV footage or stills in an attempt to
recognise an individual on the images, it is critical that the correct
procedures are followed.
When CCTV is shown for the purposes of obtaining evidence of
recognition, the procedures in Part B of section 3 of Code D of PACE,
Evidence of Recognition by Showing Films, Photographs and Other
Images, will apply when any person, including a police officer:
(a) Views the image of an individual in a film, photograph or any
other visual medium;
(b) Is asked whether they recognise that individual as someone
who is known to them (paragraph 3.34 of Code D of PACE 1984).
The footage must be shown on an individual basis in order to avoid any
suggestion of collusion or influence. A record of the circumstances and
conditions under which the person is given an opportunity to recognise
the individual must also be made.
That record, as set down in paragraph 3.36 of Code D of PACE 1984,
must include the following:
Whether the person knew or was given information concerning
the name or identity of any suspect;
What the person has been told before the viewing about the
offence, the person(s) depicted in the images or the offender
and by whom;
How and by whom the witness was asked to view the image or
look at the individual;
Whether the viewing was alone or with others and, if with
others, the reason for it;
57
R v Johnson [1996] Crim LR 504: Identifying an offender from
CCTV footage
There is a distinction between showing video film to individuals or
groups in order to try to establish the name of an offender, eg,
using televisions Crimestoppers and Crimewatch videos, and using
a video as part of a formal identification procedure where the
suspect is known. See Appendix 2.
58
The arrangements under which the person viewed the film or
saw the individual and by whom those arrangements were made;
Whether the viewing of any images was arranged as part of a
mass circulation to the police and the public or for selected
persons;
The date, time and place images were viewed or further viewed
or the individual was seen;
The times between which the images were viewed or the
individual was seen;
How the viewing of images or sighting of the individual was
controlled and by whom;
Whether the person was familiar with the location shown in any
images or the place where they saw the individual and, if so, why;
Whether or not on this occasion, the person claims to recognise
any image shown, or any individual seen, as being someone
known to them, and if they do:
The reason;
The words of recognition;
Any expressions of doubt;
What features of the image or the individual triggered the
recognition.
As per paragraph 3.37 of Code D of PACE 1984, the record may be
made by:
The person who views the image or sees the individual and
makes the recognition;
The officer or police staff member who is in charge of showing
the images to the person or is in charge of the conditions under
which the person sees the individual.
The admissibility and value of evidence of recognition obtained when
carrying out the procedures in Part B may be compromised if, before
the person is recognised, the witness who has claimed to know them is
given or is made, or becomes aware of, information about the person
which was not previously known to them personally but which they
have purported to rely on to support their claim that the person is in
fact known to them.
One method of disseminating CCTV images to staff is by putting
images on the force intranet. It is advisable that staff viewing the
footage or stills do so individually to avoid collusion.
The intranet page displaying images should not have the capacity to
allow staff to save or remove footage or stills. If this capacity is not
disabled, investigators must not make copies of the images or email
them to colleagues. These measures will help to maintain the integrity
of any recognition made.
7.4.5 Group Viewing of CCTV Images
In some rare instances, it may be necessary to conduct group viewings
of images, such as during briefings. However, this is not considered
good practice if the intention is to obtain evidence of recognition (R v
Caldwell and Dixon [1994] 99 Cr App R 73). Images that are shown in
this manner may be in relation to matters of immediate officer safety,
for example, where it is impractical for every officer to check the force
intranet or their email account before leaving the station. The officer in
charge of showing the images should put safeguards in place in the
event of a recognition by one or more of the group, ie, officers put their
hands up and are spoken to outside the briefing.
This method of showing images is a last resort and other means should
be sought on a routine basis. If showing images to a group of staff is
unavoidable, it is unlikely that any subsequent recognition could be used
as evidence, although it could still be used for intelligence purposes.
7.4.6 Controlled Viewing of CCTV Following a
Request from an Investigating Officer
If a controlled viewing is to take place, staff requested to take part must
view the images alone. The viewing should be overseen by an individual
of the rank of sergeant or above with no direct involvement in the
investigation. During the procedure, a record of the information
outlined in 7.4.4 Obtaining Recogition Evidence from Witnesses
should be made as soon as is practicable, even if there is no recognition
made. In investigations into serious crime, consideration should be
given to videoing the procedure. This will ensure greater transparency.
It should be noted that when an officer recognises a suspect from any of
the recognition procedures outlined previously, they do not become
59
R v Caldwell and Dixon [1994] 99 Cr App R 73 and R v Johnson
[1996] Crim. LR 504
Identifying an offender from CCTV footage.
Ensure that evidence is regulated so that identification is, as much as
possible, spontaneous and independent. For full details see Appendix 2.
60
eyewitnesses to the offence. Accordingly, the law does not require that
officer to take part in any further Code D identification procedure.
For further information on specialist identification techniques, including
facial recognition, gait analysis, height measurement and facial or other
image comparison, contact the force forensic services or the NPIA
Specialist Operations Centre, telephone: 0845 000 5463.
Before speaking to any outside agency or company, investigators
should liaise with their FTCS to discuss what is required from the CCTV
evidence, as the FTCS may be able to suggest other in force methods to
achieve the same result. If an outside agency or company is consulted,
their understanding of CCTV should be clarified first. For example, CCTV
imagery is sent to an external expert in facial and body morphology. A
large and detailed report is completed, but an edited, re-encoded copy
of the CCTV material has been used to produce the findings. Although
an expert in the human structure, this person was not an expert in
CCTV and, as such, if their evidence had been used, all findings could
have been inadmissable. The re-encoded copy had changed the pixel
make-up of the image so all measurements were inaccurate.
Once circulation of images has produced the name of a suspect(s), the
suspect(s) details should be compared with other sources of intelligence
in order to gather supporting evidence before arrest. This could include
the custody photograph of the individual, address, previous convictions,
and where and with whom they associate. The information may be
obtained from the force intelligence system.
Once sufficient intelligence or evidence relating to the released images
has been gathered or an arrest has been made and the person
identified, the images must be removed from public view. Consideration
may be given to re-releasing them if necessary.
Social networking sites can also be used as a tool to help confirm the
identify of an individual. Websites such as Facebook allow users to post
photographs of themselves on their profile page. Some users have an
open account whereby anybody on the site can access their personal
details and photographs. Names suggested as potential matches to
CCTV images may be compared with uploaded images. It is also
possible that potential suspects are wearing the same clothing as worn
at the time of the offence. This is particularly useful if the clothing seen
on the footage is very distinctive. Photographs and names may also
help to identify co-offenders or potential witnesses. If any relevant
information is identified, investigators should contact the FTCS for
advice on how to retrieve the images.
In making use of these resources, investigators will need to ensure they
do not breach relevant legislation such as the DPA (see 2.2 The Data
Protection Act 1998). Where forces have their own policies and
procedures, investigators will need to follow these accordingly.
7.5 Specialist
Methods Used to
Identify Suspects
7.6 Research and
Intelligence to
Confirm the
Identity of an
Individual
7.7 The Use of
Social Networking
Sites
Introducing CCTV
Images During
Interview
This section explains how to use CCTV footage
during suspect interviews, including the
preparation required.
61
62
8: Introducing CCTV Images During Interview
Contents
8.1 Preparation before the Interview 63
8.1.1 The Use of Working Copies in the Interview 63
8.1.2 The Use of Compilation Discs 63
8.1.3 The Use of Story Boards 64
8.2 Preparation of the Interview Room 64
8.3 Introducing CCTV Images to Suspects during the 65
Interview
8.3.1 Pre-Interview Disclosure 65
8.3.2 Introducing the Footage 65
Before interviewing a suspect, the following steps should be considered.
Alongside this, it is also good practice to consult force interview
specialists, such as Tier 3 interviewers and major incident teams.
If an investigator intends to introduce CCTV into a suspect interview, it
should form part of the interview plan and structure. This will, in turn,
determine the reasons why the footage is to be shown and at what
point in the interview it should be presented to the suspect.
8.1.1 The Use of Working Copies in the Interview
The master copy of the footage should not be played in an interview
(see 4 Post Retrieval). Instead, a working copy should be played to
suspects or witnesses. It should be checked beforehand to make sure
that the working copy is of a similar quality to that of the master copy.
For further information see 4 Post Retrieval, 4.1 The Creation of
Master and Working Copies and 4.3 Sending Footage to the FTCS
for Editing.
If poor-quality images are shown to a suspect, it may encourage them
to deny participation, in the belief that the CCTV material will not prove
their involvement. Every effort should, therefore, be made to get the
best quality image possible. If an investigator does discover a
discernible difference between the two copies, they should contact the
FTCS for advice.
Alternatively, still images may be used in an interview. These can be
quicker to present and more easily produced by the investigator as they
do not require specialist input.
8.1.2 The Use of Compilation Discs
Depending on the type of offence, the number of sources and the
amount of relevant footage that needs to be shown, it may be helpful
to produce a compilation disc. This will be an edited version of the
master or working copy, which is short and to the point, and shows the
footage the investigator wishes the suspect or witness to view. The
master or working copy of the footage should be retained in its original
format and be readily available for viewing by any party if requested.
It is important that investigators ensure that the strength of the
evidence in the footage included on the compilation disc is not
misrepresented. This means that the evidence should be portrayed
fairly and not edited in such a way as to give the impression that it is
more compelling than it really is.
8.1 Preparation
before the
Interview
63
8.2 Preparation of
the Interview
Room
64
Forces will have different policies and procedures for compilation discs
and investigators are advised to refer to these. Whoever produces the
compilation discs will require clear instructions on what will be required
in the interview. They should be given an edit list containing the
following information:
Exhibit number;
Relevant camera number;
Start and finish times of each edit, including hours, minutes
and seconds;
Software used to view the footage.
Depending on the images available in the original footage, the
compilation disc should ideally contain the following:
Best available view of the suspects face and clothing;
Approach of victim and suspect;
Offence taking place;
Escape route;
Any other relevant footage.
8.1.3 The Use of Story Boards
Bound or individual images (correctly referenced and exhibited) may be
shown to the suspect during the interview. These story boards could
show specific events or the lead up to them. They are also referred to as
an album or book of photographic stills and can be used for court
presentations. See 9.4 Basic Court Presentation. It is also possible to
use digital image portfolios and image charts, which are digital files
replayable on a computer or other digital playback device.
Investigators should check that all the relevant recording and/or
playing equipment is available and in working order prior to the
interview. It is essential that:
The material plays on the equipment available;
The video/DVD player can be fast forwarded and rewound
using the remote control;
The disc or tape is ready to play at the correct place;
The screen can be clearly seen by the people who will be
present during the interview.
Ensuring that the relevant equipment has been prepared will help
investigators to make the most impact with the CCTV footage.
There are several reasons why investigators may wish to introduce
CCTV to suspects during the interview and these include:
As the basis for direct questions to the suspect, eg, is that you?
Where is that garment you are wearing? Did you do that?
Who is that person?
The footage could be used during the challenge stage of the
interview to highlight that the suspects account differs from
that portrayed in the CCTV.
It may help a suspect to prove their lack of involvement in the
offence at an early stage, thereby enabling officers to pursue
other lines of enquiry.
8.3.1 Pre-Interview Disclosure
The investigating officer may find it beneficial to allow the suspects
solicitor to view the CCTV before the interview. If this is to be done, one
method that could be considered is to show the solicitor the footage
with the detainee present. Investigators should add the following to the
pre-interview briefing:
This is not an interview. I will not be asking your client
questions or inviting comment from them. I remind
them, however, that they are still under caution and any
comments they make are being recorded and may be
classed as significant. Any significant comments made
will be dealt with as such at the commencement of the
interview that follows this briefing.
The benefit of using this method is that the investigator is not then
reliant on the solicitor to represent the footage accurately to the
suspect. Furthermore, it will avoid requests by the solicitor to view the
footage with their client during consultation.
8.3.2 Introducing the Footage
Once an investigator is ready to show the images to a suspect, an
introduction to the footage should be given. The introduction should
contain the exhibit number of the footage and the invitation for the
suspect to view the images or stills. The decision to offer any further
information or explanation of the footage rests with the interviewing
officer and will depend on the circumstances of the case and the
investigators interview plan.
65
8.3 Introducing
CCTV Images to
Suspects during
the Interview
66
Investigators can invite the suspect to comment on the images either
during or after playing the footage. Any questions investigators may
wish to ask should link in to their overall interview strategy and any
other relevant material or evidence. After the initial viewing of the
CCTV, suspects and their solicitors should be given the opportunity to
view all or any part of the footage again should they wish to do so.
Disclosure and
Preparation of
CCTV Footage for
Court
After CCTV footage has been successfully located,
retrieved and analysed, it can then be presented to
the court. It is good practice for forces to have a
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in place.
Careful planning, preparation and efficient liaison
with the court and legal teams will enable
investigators to make the most impact with CCTV
evidence. For example, prior to the use of CCTV in
court, a professional exhibit, presented early to the
defence, may result in a guilty plea and avoid the
need for a trial. The following section provides
guidelines on presenting footage effectively in court.
67
68
9: Disclosure and Preparation of CCTV Footage for Court
Contents
9.1 Disclosure 69
9.2 Preparation before the Trial 70
9.3 Liaison 70
9.4 Basic Court Presentation 70
9.5 Detailed Court Presentation 71
9.6 Post Trial 71
9.6.1 Feedback to Owners of CCTV 71
In addition to providing the defence with copies, or access to, material
on which the prosecution case relies, the defence must also be given
access to any material which might reasonably be considered capable
of undermining the case for the prosecution, or supporting the case for
the defence.
Every investigation should have a disclosure officer, whose primary
responsibilities are to be the focus for enquiries, and to ensure that the
investigators disclosure responsibilities are complied with. In many
cases the disclosure officer will be the officer in the case. All images
should be subject to standard evidential processes which ensure that if
an image is required by the criminal justice system, it is viewable and is
accompanied by a full audit trail. In complex cases, the exhibits officer,
if one is appointed, and the disclosure officer should have ready access
to imaging specialists or experts who might be required to respond to
more detailed enquiries.
The established procedure for developing a disclosure schedule (MG6
forms) records all relevant information, including digital image evidence
relating to a case. The disclosure officer should complete the schedule
and ensure that unused images are included. Overtly captured digital
images should form part of the information recorded on the non-
sensitive disclosure schedule. The schedule should provide a brief
description of what is contained in the image or video sequence and
any significant processing applied to it. A more detailed description of
processes should only be provided if the image becomes an exhibit or is
requested by the defence to form part of the defence case. The
description of the unused image on the schedule should enable the
prosecutor to make a decision about defence disclosure. For example,
if an image has been substantially cropped, or only a selective area has
been enhanced, it may be necessary for the schedule to state this so
that the defence may be made aware of the availability of the
uncropped and unadjusted images.
Access to, and disclosure of, digital images which become exhibits
should be recorded in the audit trail and case papers when disclosed at
police interview stage. At post-charge stage, access should only be
allowed after agreement from the CPS. Any access to exhibits and
unused material, including copies, should be restricted to those people
who have a legitimate role in viewing the image. All access to the
images should be documented as part of the audit trail that
accompanies each image. All requests for disclosure of unused images
should be recorded. Defence requests should be specific about exactly
which images are required for viewing. For example, in the case of
unused CCTV video sequences, the defence should be asked to specify
the viewing period and the camera positions required. If disclosure of
an unused image is facilitated, the following should be documented:
9.1 Disclosure
69
70
The date and time at which disclosure was made;
The identification of any third party to whom disclosure was made;
The reason for disclosure;
The extent of the information to which access was allowed, or
that was disclosed.
For further information on disclosure see ACPO (2007) Practice Advice
on Police Use of Digital Images and Attorney General (2005)
Guidelines on Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings.
The most important consideration for the preparation of footage for
court is the equipment available in the court room. Courts may use
antiquated technology for presenting CCTV footage. Unless the force is
in a position to provide its own up-to-date equipment or to hire this
from an appropriate source, investigators will need to find a suitable
format in which to present the images.
Early contact with the court is recommended to ascertain the type of
format that will be suitable and to allow as much time as possible to
prepare. Some courts may allow investigators to bring in a laptop and
plug it into a display screen. Other courts may only be equipped with a
VHS player.
In most cases, DVDs will be the most accessible format for court. It
should be noted, however, that there are different types of DVDs (data
versus movie) and investigators should check that the one they intend
to use for the trial works on the equipment available.
Whatever format investigators decide to use to present CCTV evidence,
it is essential that they familiarise themselves with the relevant
equipment before the trial.
Once it is known what equipment is, or will be, available in the
courtroom, investigators should liaise with the CPS to agree a suitable
court presentation. Whatever type of presentation is decided on,
investigators should ensure that it is flexible enough to have any piece of
footage quickly removed without needing an entire re-edit. This ensures
that if the judge decides to exclude a piece of footage from the trial,
investigators are still able to present their remaining CCTV evidence.
In the case of minor offences, there may not be the need for an
elaborate presentation of the CCTV footage. Some forces have
developed their own software for court presentations and will provide
their own guidance and training on this. For investigators from forces
without such software, the FTCS can often help with the preparation of
a DVD for the court presentation.
9.2 Preparation
before the Trial
9.3 Liaison
9.4 Basic Court
Presentation
Only relevant footage that is to be presented in the trial needs to be
included on the DVD. Liaising with the CPS will assist investigators in
providing the appropriate footage for the prosecuting team. As long as
the editing of earlier versions has been correctly audited and the master
copy remains safely stored, there should be no problem with disclosure.
If it is not possible to present a DVD compilation, an exhibit book
of photographic stills, also known as a story board, can be used. See
8.1.3 The Use of Story Boards. Story boards often have narrative
comments from the reviewer defining the actions or content of the
specific imagery. If a book is to be used, it is recommended that the
stills should be produced to a high-quality photograph printing
standard to ensure that the quality is suitable for court.
Depending on the scale of the trial and the type of offence, it may be
necessary to provide a more detailed court presentation with, for
example, graphs, charts, maps, stills and video clips. Liaising closely with
the CPS and defence teams will ensure that whatever format is used, it
will meet the needs of the legal representatives.
If a more detailed presentation is required, outside help may be
necessary. In some forces, there are already technical or imaging teams
that are able to provide assistance in presenting more complicated
cases. For forces without such resources, it may be necessary to engage
the assistance of a private company. Help on selecting a suitable CCTV
practitioner can be sought from the NPIA Specialist Operations Centre,
telephone: 0845 000 5463. It may also be helpful to contact other
forces or the Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) for
advice or recommendations. However, if a more technical and detailed
approach is taken, officers should ensure that the end product can be
played on the facilities available at court.
Whatever method of presentation is chosen, it should be professional,
practical, allow CCTV to be viewed in its best quality and, ideally, should
appear in one product, ie, not on a variety of portable media with
separate hand-held charts and graphs. The purpose of the presentation
is to assist the jury in understanding the evidence, and forces should
aim for clarity and simplicity. If the equipment or software required is
particularly complicated, it is advised that a technician is available
during the relevant part of the trial to help with the set up and
presentation.
9.6.1. Feedback to Owners of CCTV
If a person has offered CCTV footage to the police and it has been
considered as part of an investigation, investigators should provide
feedback on the outcome of the investigation to the owners of the
CCTV system. This may be a local authority, a business or a private
9.5 Detailed Court
Presentation
71
9.6 Post Trial
72
individual. Feedback can help to develop good working relationships
with communities and can encourage CCTV owners to volunteer their
footage should there be a need for this in the future.
Feedback can be of a formal or informal nature. In some cases, a quick
telephone conversation may be adequate. If a local authority has
offered CCTV footage, the National CCTV Strategy recommends that
the feedback is of a more formal nature. One reason for this is that it
will help to ensure that local authority control rooms continue to receive
adequate funding. In turn, this then allows them to continue to assist
the police with their investigations. Local authorities may provide
investigators with their own feedback forms to complete. If this is not
the case, an example of a formal feedback form that officers can use is
given in Appendix 6.
Retention and
Disposal
This section should be read in conjunction with
existing legislation, force policy and force SOPs.
The main pieces of governing legislation for
retention and disposal are the Criminal Procedure
and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) and ACPO
(2005) Code of Practice for the Management of
Police Information.
73
74
10: Retention and Disposal
Contents
10.1 Retention 75
10.2 Disposal 76
Retention refers to the continued storage of, and controlled access to,
information held for a policing purpose, which has been justified
through the evaluation and review process. After being used or
disclosed, CCTV material may be retained but it can only be used or
disclosed for the same purposes.
The Code of Practice issued under section 23(1) of the CPIA, see
2.4 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, includes in
paragraph 5.9 a requirement to retain all material relevant to an
investigation, at least until proceedings are completed and for the
length of a custodial sentence or until discharge from hospital, or at
least six months from the date of conviction. All material should also be
retained in circumstances where an appeal against conviction is in
progress or if the Criminal Cases Review is considering an application
(paragraph 5.10). The CPIA retention timescales represent a minimum
requirement for the retention of police information.
Decisions relating to the retention of images beyond the timescales set by
the CPIA Code of Practice, eg, where a case is a specified serious offence
under Chapter 5 section 224 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, should be
taken locally by the information or records management team. For long-
term storage of CCTV evidence, see 5.2 Continuity Statements and
sections 3 and 4 of Home Office (2007) Storage, Replay and Disposal
of Digital Evidential Images, Publication Number 53/07 available from
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100413151426/http://scienceandresea
rch.homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb/publications/cctv-
publications/53_07_Storage_Replay_and_Di17ffe.html?view=Standa
rd&pubID=504030
CCTV footage that is incapable of having any impact on the case is
neither evidential nor unused material and should normally be
documented, then destroyed. It is not always easy to determine when
material falls within this category. Decisions to release CCTV back to its
owner, where later challenged by the defence following an abuse of
process application, will be judged on the facts as they were reasonably
known at the time of the decision.
Images associated with undetected crime should be retained according to
management of police information principles. When retaining undetected
crime records, consideration should be given to ensuring that they are easily
retrievable and accessible for replay and viewing. An assessment of the
possible value of the information to future cases should also be made.
For further information about retention, see PACE 1984 Code D, 3(f)
Destruction and retention of photographs taken or used in eyewitness
identification procedures, ACPO (2007) Practice Advice on Police
Use of Digital Images and ACPO (2010) Guidance on the
Management of Police Information, Second Edition.
10.1 Retention
75
76
Disposal is the removal of information from all police systems so that it
cannot be restored. In the case of images stored in IT systems, this
means that no force staff should be able to locate an image or piece of
information when carrying out their normal duties. Deletion should
suffice, except in circumstances where information is judged to be
extremely sensitive.
Images (and all negatives and copies), including those produced from
CCTV material, which are taken for the purposes of, or in connection
with, the identification procedures set out in PACE, must be destroyed
unless the suspect:
(a) Is charged with, or informed they may be prosecuted for, a
recordable offence;
(b) Is prosecuted for a recordable offence;
(c) Is cautioned for a recordable offence or given a warning or
reprimand in accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act
1998 for a recordable offence; or
(d) Gives informed consent, in writing, for the photograph or
images to be retained for policing purposes.
As per paragraph 3.31 of Code D of PACE 1984.
10.2 Disposal
77
Appendix 1
Abbreviations and Acronyms
78
ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers
ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition
APP Authorised Professional Practice
BST British Standard Time
BTP British Transport Police
CAST Centre for Applied Science and Technology (previously
known as Home Office Scientific Development Branch)
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CDRP Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership
(as of 1 April 2010, known as CSP)
CHIS Covert Human Intelligence Source
CPIA Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
CPO Crime Prevention Officer
CPS Crown Prosecution Service
CRO Crime Reduction Officer
CSP Community Safety Partnership (previously known as CDRP)
DAT Digital Audio Tape
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
DPA Data Protection Act
DVR Digital Video Recorder
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
E-FIT Electronic Facial Identification Technique
EHRR European Human Rights Reports
FTCS Force Technical CCTV Specialist
GMT Greenwich Mean Time
HDD Hard Disk Drive
Appendix 1
HMRC HM Revenue and Customs
HOSDB Home Office Scientific Development Branch (as of 1
April 2011 known as CAST)
HRA Human Rights Act 1998
HSE Health and Safety Executive
IPLDP Initial Police Learning Development Programme
(Probationer Training)
LA Local Authority
MOPI Management of Police Information
NPIA National Policing Improvement Agency
NVR Network Video Recorder
PACE Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
PIP Professionalising Investigation Programme
RIPA Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
SIO Senior Investigating Officer
SOCPA Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
TIE Trace, Interview and Eliminate
USB Universal Serial Bus
VRM Vehicle Registration Mark
WORM Write Once, Read Many
79
Appendix 1
80
Appendix 1
81
Appendix 2
Relevant Case Law
82
R v Caldwell and Dixon [1993] 99 Cr App R 73: Identifying an
offender from CCTV footage
A group of police officers in a police station identified, from a security
video camera, some individuals carrying out an armed robbery. On
appeal it was argued that such evidence should have been excluded
because a proper procedure was not followed.
The appeals against conviction were dismissed.
This type of evidence should be regulated to maximise the prospects of
any recognition evidence being spontaneous and independent. Note:
Evidence which is unfair may be excluded under section 78 of PACE
1984 at the discretion of the trial judge.
R v Smith and others [2009] 1 Cr App R 36: Requirements where a
police officer makes an identification from CCTV images
During an unsuccessful attempt by a gang of men to enter a nightclub,
one of the group fired a shot, followed shortly after by a further thirteen
gun shots, which killed one of the doormen at the club and injured
three others. The group then made their escape in cars but were
eventually arrested and charged with murder and attempted murder.
The case involved issues surrounding the actions of other members of
the group acting in a manner which was not expected, and evidence
relating to assertions that some members were not present. However,
the issue that is of most concern for the present purposes relates to the
identification of one of the group, Christie, made by a police officer
from CCTV images.
Christie argued that the evidence that he had been present at the
incident by way of identification by a police officer from CCTV images
had been in breach of Code D of the Codes of Practice that accompany
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) because no record
had been kept of the officer's initial recognition of him.
Appeals dismissed. Convictions upheld.
Where a police officer views a CCTV recording or image, there is a
difference in comparison with an ordinary witness viewing the same to
identify someone seen committing an offence. Code D provides
safeguards that are equally important where a police officer has been
asked to attempt to identify someone from a CCTV recording.
Regardless of whether Code D applies, a record must be made of
the following:
(i) Any initial reactions to seeing the CCTV images;
(ii) Where a police officer fails to recognise anyone on the initial
viewing but does so at a later date;
Appendix 2
(iii) Where a police officer fails to recognise anyone at all;
(iv) Anything that an officer may say with regard to any doubt;
(v) Where there is recognition, any factors relating to the image
that caused that recognition to occur.
The record must be available to assist in measuring the reliability of the
claim that a police officer recognises a particular individual. In addition,
it is important that any initial reactions are made available for
examination as required.
R v Chaney [2009] 1 Cr App R 35: Identification from CCTV
images by way of recognition not breach Code D
C was accused of theft, firearms-related offences and driving while
disqualified. There was CCTV evidence of an incident that resulted in
these accusations. A police officer who was not a party to the
investigation but knew C in relation to another unrelated matter
received an email consisting of still images from the CCTV footage. The
police officer was asked to provide his thoughts regarding the fact that
other officers believed the man in the images was C. The police officer
replied that he was able to identify C. The police officer also found out
the registration number of the car, also in the images, and on checking
found it to be registered to C, but the police officer knew that C was, at
the time, disqualified from driving. The police officer did not make any
statements at the time on any of these matters.
At trial, a question arose as to whether the person in the CCTV images
was C and evidence from the police officer was admitted. C was
convicted and appealed arguing:
(i) The purported identification by the police officer was
procedurally flawed and unfair;
(ii) The evidence was more prejudicial than probative and its
admission in evidence at trial rendered the conviction unsafe;
(iii) The trial judge, having allowed the identification in evidence,
failed adequately to warn the jury of the special need for
caution in cases which rest on identification evidence, and to
outline breaches of the principles of Code D and the
significance of those breaches;
(iv) The judge failed properly to deal in his directions with the issue
of lack of identification parades in respect of other
eyewitnesses, which added to the unsafeness of the conviction.
Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.
83
Appendix 2
84
Code D was not directly applicable in this instance in line with the case
of R v Smith [2009] 1 Cr App R 36 and guidance given following that
case. The jury had the police officer's reaction and what he had said in
his printed response to the email. That response had not been created
in contemplation of him giving evidence, so there was nothing to
suggest that his reaction was anything other than spontaneous and
genuine. On this basis, the judge had been correct in admitting the
evidence. The jury had been in full knowledge of all the circumstances
surrounding the recognition and the judge had made it clear that the
issue was identification and the police officer's evidence had been fully
summarised for them.
This case was one of recognition rather than identification and the
judge should have warned the jury of the requirement for care to be
taken. However, there was other evidence in this case that was
overwhelming and the principle piece of evidence that identified him
was his car. There was also other evidence to link him to the theft.
R v Johnson [1996] Crim. LR 504: Identifying an offender from
CCTV footage
J was a suspect for two robberies. Just after the second robbery, J and
another woman had been caught on a video security camera standing
near the scene of the attack. The victim was shown the video after J
had become a firm suspect (it is not clear from the report if the video
was shown before or after J's arrest, but that is not relevant). The victim
picked out J as one of her attackers.
J was subsequently convicted of this offence, but appealed on the
grounds that the evidence of the video identification should have been
excluded by the trial judge under section 78 of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984.
Appeal allowed in part. Conviction for robbery quashed.
There is a distinction between showing video film to various
individuals/groups in order to try and establish the name of an
offender, such as with television's Crimestoppers and Crimewatch
videos, and using a video as part of a formal identification procedure
where the suspect is known.
The purpose, in these particular circumstances, for showing the witness
the video was so that the victim could say, Yes that was the woman
who attacked me. It was almost identical to a one-to-one
confrontation identification, but performed by video.
Once the police have found a definite suspect, Code D states that the
procedures in Code D must be followed if the suspect disputes that they
were the person involved and there are appropriate eyewitnesses
Appendix 2
available. The first step is normally the appointment of an identification
officer and the subsequent offering of a parade to a suspect (long
before a confrontation could be considered).
J had not been given an opportunity to stand on an identification
parade and the identification methods used were flawed. Such
evidence should have been excluded at the original trial.
The Appeal Court appears to have considered the police action in this
case to be a confrontation by video. The judgment would appear to
suggest that if the proper procedures laid down in Code D had been
followed then the confrontation by video would have been acceptable.
There may be occasions where such a procedure could be useful. For
example, a suspect, who is not being kept in custody, agrees to a
parade, but flees the country. Rather than wait several months or even
years to hold some form of identification procedure, a 'confrontation by
video' using a security videotape could be an identification officer's
best choice if he is concerned about the witness's memory fading.
However, confrontation evidence is not given a great deal of weight by
the courts.
Another aspect of this case worth considering is whether the video
could be used to show the suspect's close proximity to the scene. The
relatively new requirement for a suspect to account for their presence in
a suspicious place (under section 37 of the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994) would now put her in a difficult position at court if no
explanation was forthcoming.
R v Smith [2005] EWCA Crim 3375: Identifying an offender from
CCTV footage
A man (S) went into a florist where the victim (V) was working alone
one afternoon in January 2004. S was holding a knife and told the
victim to open the till, she did so and he took the money from it (45).
He left the shop but V did not see where he went.
V had a very good view of S. Ten minutes later she gave a detailed
description to the officers who attended her call to them. The officers
made enquiries nearby and the manager of a nearby shop stated that
he had seen a man fitting the description some thirty to forty minutes
earlier. He produced a CCTV tape on which V later identified S again,
from a full frontal image. This identification was made within half to
three-quarters of an hour after the incident. V gave a statement to the
police some six days later but her description this time differed slightly.
S was arrested but refused to answer any questions in interview. He
gave evidence at the trial and admitted that he had been in the other
shop but not the florists.
85
Appendix 2
86
During the investigation, a police inspector wanted to carry out a video
identification parade. S had refused to leave his cell, although at trial he
claimed that he had never been asked (this was dismissed by the
judge). The inspector treated this as a refusal to take part in the video
parade. Later that day V viewed a video parade using a still image of S
and identified S. Evidence of this identification procedure was
subsequently not admitted at trial and so the jury did not hear it.
S was convicted at trial and appealed. The conviction was quashed.
V's identification evidence was poor and unsupported with several
discrepancies between the descriptions given and the facts accepted
and/or established at trial. Her evidence was not supported by any
independent evidence, such as fingerprint evidence or a knife found.
The defence pointed out that there was good lighting in the shop and
that V was close to S. There was some evidence to support the claims in
the corroboration of the other shopkeeper and S himself accepted that
he had been in the vicinity for a short time.
Of most concern was the way in which the CCTV identification was
made. When V viewed the tape, it focused on the image showing S. V's
attention was directed only to him and this could have been avoided.
The combination of V being told that the police had CCTV footage of
someone fitting the description she had given and her being invited to
look at only S's image made the basis of the conviction unsafe.
The court suggested that it would have been more acceptable if the
witness had viewed the CCTV footage at greater length so that other
people could be viewed as well. PACE Code D paragraph 3.2 states in (b)
that the attention of the witness must not be directed to any individual.
In addition, the police should avoid saying that the CCTV footage
contains an image of someone matching the witness description.
R v Clare; R v Peach [1995] 2 Cr App Rep 333: Interpreting
CCTV evidence
Football supporters were filmed and photographed as they entered the
stadium. After the match, there was a violent incident involving a
number of supporters and members of the public. The incident was
recorded on video recorders attached to buildings. On the basis of what
could be seen, two men were charged with violent disorder.
At their trial the court allowed PC Fitzpatrick to give evidence. He had
used colour photographs and film taken before and during the match
and compared it with black and white videotape, in order to analyse
what was going on, where violent incidents were taking place and who
was involved.
Appendix 2
Both C and P were convicted but appealed on the grounds that the
videotape should have been shown to the jury without the explanations
given by the officer, as he did not know the defendants personally and
was not an expert witness.
The appeal was dismissed.
The officer had developed special knowledge, which the jury did not
possess, by carefully analysing the video material and photographs. He
and a colleague had studied images so that they knew what individuals
looked like and what they were wearing on the day. It would have been
impractical to give the jury the time to complete the same research.
The officer was open to cross-examination and the jury could choose to
accept or reject the evidence. It was, therefore, legitimate to allow the
officer to assist the jury by pointing to what he asserted was happening
in the crowded scenes on the tape.
Taylor v Chief Constable of Cheshire [1986] 1 WLR 1479: When
CCTV footage is lost
A recording was made in WH Smith of a man allegedly putting a packet
of batteries into his back pocket. He then turned and glanced straight
at the camera and walked off. The alleged theft was seen live on a
CCTV screen by a store security officer, who immediately showed a
recording of the incident to the store manager. Thirty minutes later it
was shown to two police officers who both identified Taylor as the
offender. A few weeks later, another police officer also identified Taylor
from the tape. The recording was taken to Runcorn police station to be
shown to the appellants solicitor, but the video did not work on the
police video recorder and so was sent back to WH Smith. Arrangements
were made for the solicitor to view the footage, who formed the opinion
that no offence had taken place and that it was not clear that the
appellant was depicted.
The tape was left at the store to be kept safe but it was accidentally
erased by new security staff before the trial when it was to be shown to
the magistrates.
Taylor was convicted but then appealed on the grounds that what the
officers claimed to have seen on the videotape was hearsay and should
have been ruled as inadmissible.
The appeal was dismissed.
Oral evidence given by a witness as to what they have seen on a video
recording, which is not produced to the court, should be treated as
direct evidence of what was believed to be seen in a particular place at
a particular time. There is effectively no distinction between witnessing
an event in person and viewing that event on a CCTV screen.
87
Appendix 2
88
If the recording itself is not produced, the weight and reliability
attached to that oral evidence will depend on factors, such as the
length and clarity of the recording, and how many times it was viewed
by the witness. In this case, there was other relevant information, for
example, the appellant admitted being in the place where the incident
happened at the time of the incident. The guidelines laid out in R v
Turnbull [1977] QB 224 will apply if there is uncertainty about the
identity of an individual.
R v Rosenberg [2006] EWCA Crim 6: Use of footage recorded by others
R was caught on a private CCTV camera belonging to her neighbours. R
and her neighbours, Mr and Mrs Brewer, did not get on and R was
aware that a camera was pointed at her house. Mr Brewer had told the
police about the video camera and had been warned that it was a
violation of Rs privacy, but the police had taken the videotapes when
they were offered. The appellant knew that the Brewers camera was
recording events happening in the house.
Following reports from Mr Brewer, the police attended R's property in
January 2004 where they found a quantity of drugs and money which
R claimed were not hers. R was interviewed twice that evening with her
solicitor before finding out that the police had the CCTV footage. The
footage showed her apparently unwrapping packets of drugs, handing
objects to others and being shown how to use a 'crack bottle'. She was
then interviewed again.
At trial the defence tried to have the video evidence excluded, arguing
that the surveillance had been directed by the police and this was in
breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). They
also argued that the police had failed to inform R that her property was
being watched. They asked that the evidence should be excluded under
section 78 of PACE.
The trial judge ruled that the police had not breached RIPA. The
defence appealed but the conviction and sentence were upheld.
The police knew surveillance was being carried out and were prepared
to use it as evidence, but it could not be regarded as police surveillance
because the police neither initiated nor encouraged it. It was, however,
accepted that the degree of police involvement could be a factor in
deciding whether to exclude evidence under section 78 of PACE.
Section 26 of RIPA was not breached because the surveillance was not
covert. The camera was visible and R knew it was recording.
Appendix 2
Even if there had been a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, Article
8, the police could have relied on the proviso in the Article that it was
necessary for the prevention of crime.
Rs interview statements should be admitted as she was told what the
nature of the case was against her.
Rs house had been searched and incriminating evidence found, but the
police at the interview stage were not obliged to disclose the whole of
the case and the evidence they held against her. Even if the police
should have disclosed the videos prior to the first interview, that was not
grounds for excluding the interviews.
89
Appendix 2
90
Appendix 2
91
Appendix 3
Sample Request for Disclosure of
Personal Data Template
(Under DPA Section 29(3))
Appendix 3
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ACPO, NPIA 2011 92
To: ...................................................................................... Force Details: ..................................................................................
Data Protection Act 1998 Request for Disclosure of Personal Data Under Section 29(3) of the Data
Protection Act 1998
In order to maintain police confidentiality, you are requested to treat this application as confidential.
I am making enquiries that are concerned with:
*(A) The prevention or detection of crime; *Delete as appropriate
*(B) The apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
Please provide the following recorded data/images CCTV or other recorded video footage/images for the
time period(s):
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The data/images are necessary for investigating the offence of............................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
This section may be left blank due to the sensitivity of the investigation. Where this applies, this form should
be signed by an officer of superintendent rank or above.
I can verify that the recorded data/images are required for the reason given above and that failure to
disclose same would be likely to prejudice these matters.
I can confirm that to the best of my knowledge the information supplied herewith is complete and accurate.
Signed: .................................................................................................................................................... Rank: ..........................................
Name (BLOCK CAPITALS): .............................................................................................................. Date: ..........................................
Officer attending: ................................................................................................................................ Collar number: .......................
System registered under Data Protection: Y/N
If not please contact the Office of the Information Commissioner.
The Office of the Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK 9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545740
This form to be retained for a minimum of 5 years and attached to the case papers.
93
Appendix 4
Sample Retention Notice Template
(Under SOCPA Section 66)
94
NOTICE UNDER S.66 SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME AND POLICE ACT 2005
I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this form:
Signature: Date:
White Copy: Retained by OIC. If ownership is in dispute, forward to Legal Services with a WG401
outlining the circumstances relating to the issue.
Green Copy: For person(s) retaining the property.
Appendix 4
Crime ref no:
Name (BLOCK CAPITALS): DOB:
Address:
I have been informed, and understand, that the below described property which is held by me is
currently the subject of police enquiries.
I have also been told, and understand, that this notice is not transferable and, if I dispose of the
property subject of this notice, or alter it any material way, I may be liable to civil or criminal
proceedings.
Details of property:
Issuing officers signature: Date:
Name (BLOCK CAPITALS): Rank and No: Tel no:
95
Appendix 5
Sample Viewing Log Template
*Delete as appropriate
Record of Viewing
Operation/Offence/Incident ........................................................................................................................................................
Appendix 5
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ACPO, NPIA 2011 96
Relevant* Non-relevant*
Exhibit number including seal: Address where found:
Full postcode:
Description from exhibit sheet: Viewing dates(s):
Viewing times:
Start:
Finish:
Reviewing officer(s):
Reason for reviewing:
Action number:
Total number of cameras:
Cameras viewed:
Time accuracy: (eg, one hour fast)
Entry number: Camera number/
Time:
Viewing notes:
97
Appendix 6
Sample Feedback Template
98
What was the final outcome of the case?..................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Any other points/notes?........................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Appendix 6
Officer Name ............................................................................ Date................................................................................................
Local Authority CCTV Control Room ................................................................................................................................................
Operation/Offence/Incident ................................................................................................................................................................
To [Insert Local Authority CCTV Managers Name]
Thank you for your assistance in the investigation into [insert operation/offence/incident] on [insert date].
This feedback form outlines the role the footage played in the investigation.
CCTV camera number............................................................ Camera location........................................................................
Was the CCTV Operator controlled or fixed/passive? (Please delete)
Was the CCTV real time or post event? (Please delete)
YES NO
Did the LA CCTV assist the investigation?
If yes, in what area(s) did it assist?
Intelligence gathering:
Eliminating lines of enquiry:
Proving a suspects innocence:
Identification of witnesses:
Identification of vehicles:
Clarification of disputed evidence:
Creation of timeline of events:
Other, please state:
If no, why did the LA CCTV not assist the investigation?
Images not relevant:
Quality of images not good enough:
CCTV did not cover the correct area:
Poor camera work by CCTV operators:
Poor-quality recordings:
Product unable to be played back by local police/CPS/defence:
Other, please state:
Did the LA CCTV play a role in the interviewing procedure?
Did the LA CCTV play a role in a defendant deciding on their plea?
Did the LA CCTV play a role in the court hearing?
99
Appendix 7
References
100
ACPO (2005) Code of Practice on the Management of Police
Information. Wyboston: NCPE.
ACPO (2005) Practice Advice on Core Investigative Doctrine.
Wyboston: NCPE.
ACPO (2007) Good Practice Guide for Computer-based Electronic
Evidence, Official Release Version [Internet]. London: ACPO.
Available from
http://www.7safe.com/electronic_evidence/ACPO_guidelines_com
puter_evidence.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2011]
ACPO (2007) Practice Advice on Police Use of Digital Images.
London: NPIA.
ACPO (2009) Guidance on the Lawful and Effective Use of Covert
Techniques Local Volume Crime and Disorder. London: NPIA.
[RESTRICTED]
ACPO (2009) Guidance on the Release of Images of Suspects and
Defendants. London: ACPO.
ACPO (2009) Practice Advice on the Management of Priority and
Volume Crime (The Volume Crime Management Model), Second
Edition. London: NPIA.
ACPO (2010) Guidance on the Management of Police Information,
Second Edition. London: NPIA
ACPO and Hampshire Constabulary (2009) Manual of Guidance:
Freedom of Information. London: ACPO.
ACPO, HMRC and SOCA (2009) Guidance on the Lawful and Effective
Use of Covert Techniques Legal Framework and Covert Operational
Management. London: NPIA. [RESTRICTED]
Attorney General (2005) Guidelines on Disclosure in Criminal
Proceedings [Internet]. London: CPS. Available from
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/attorney_generals_guidelines
_on_disclosure [Accessed 10 June 2011]
British Transport Police (2009) CCTV [Internet]. London: British
Transport Police. Available from
http://www.btp.police.uk/passengers/issues/cctv.aspx
[Accessed 10 June 2011]
Appendix 7
Crimestoppers (2011) Crimestoppers [Internet]. Wallington:
Crimestoppers. Available from http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org
Crown Prosecution Service (1997) Protection from Harassment Act
[Internet]. London: CPS. Available from
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/#a
03a [Accessed 08 August 2011]
Health and Safety Executive (2009) Striking the balance between
operational and health and safety duties in the Police Service [Internet].
London: HSE. Available from
www.hse.gov.uk/services/police/duties.pdf [Accessed 10 June 2011]
Home Office (1998) Guidelines for the Handling of Video Tape,
Publication Number 21/98. London: HOSDB.
Home Office (2003) Guidance on operating the new powers of seizure
in Part ll of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 [Internet]. Home
Office Circular 019/23. Available from
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/home-office-
circulars/circulars-2003/019-2003/ [Accessed 10 June 2011]
Home Office (2006) Video Processing and Analysis Training and
Reference Manual. London: HOSDB.
Home Office (2007) Digital Imaging Procedure, Version 2.1 November
2007 58/07 [Internet]. London: HOSDB. Available from
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100413151426/http://scienceandre
search.homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb/publications/cctv-
Home Office (2007) Implementing a strategy for the identification,
retrieval and evaluation of CCTV evidence in major investigations
[Internet]. London: HOSDB. Available from
http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb/publications/
cctv-publications/SIO_strategy_2-Nov-07_v1.0.pdf?view=Binary
Home Office (2007) Storage, Replay and Disposal of Digital Evidential
Images, Publication Number 53/07 [Internet]. London: HOSDB.
Available from
publications/53_07_Storage_Replay_and_Di17ffe.html?view=Sta
ndard&pubID=504030 [Accessed 10 June 2011]
101
Appendix
102
Home Office (2008) Retrieval of Video Evidence and Production of
Working Copies from Digital CCTV Systems, Version 2.0 Publication
Number 66-08 [Internet]. Available from
publications/66-08_Retrieval_of_Video_Ev12835.pdf?view=Binary
Home Office (2008) The National CCTV Strategy [Internet]. London:
Home Office Crime Reduction. Available from
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/cctv/index.htm
Information Commissioners Office (2008) CCTV Code of Practice
[Internet]. London: ICO. Available from
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/topic_specific_guides/cct
v.aspx [Accessed 10 June 2011]
NPIA (2006) Automated Face Recognition Applications within Law
Enforcement, Market and Technology Review October 2006 [Internet].
Wyboston: NPIA. Available from
http://www.npia.police.uk/en/docs/Face_Recognition_Report.pdf
NPIA (2007) Police Standard for Still Digital Image Capture and Data
Interchange of Facial/Mugshot and Scar, Mark and Tattoo Images,
Version 2.0. Wyboston: NPIA.
Office of Public Sector (2001) Private Security Industry Act 2001
[Internet]. London: OPSI. Available from
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2001/ukpga_20010012_en_1#L
egislation-Preamble [Accessed 10 June 2011]
Reid, S. (2008) Crimewatch Explained, The Journal of Homicide and
Major Incident Investigation, 4 (2). London: NPIA.
Wright, M. (2008) Focus On Forensic Gait Analysis, The Journal of
Homicide and Major Incident Investigation, 4 (1). London: NPIA.
Acts of Parliament
UNITED KINGDOM. Parliament. 1984. Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984. London: TSO.
UNITED KINGDOM. Parliament. 1996. Criminal Procedure and
Investigations Act 1996. London: TSO.
UNITED KINGDOM. Parliament. 1997. Protection from Harassment
Act 1997. London: TSO.
UNITED KINGDOM. Parliament. 1998. Data Protection Act 1998.
London: TSO.
UNITED KINGDOM. Parliament. 1998. Human Rights Act 1998.
London: TSO.
UNITED KINGDOM. Parliament. 2000. Freedom of Information Act
2000. London: TSO.
UNITED KINGDOM. Parliament. 2002. Police Reform Act 2002.
London: TSO.
UNITED KINGDOM. Parliament. 2003. Criminal Justice Act 2003.
London: TSO.
103

CBA CCTV Final Locked

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CBA CCTV Final Locked

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Practice Advice on

THE USE OF CCTV

Вам также может понравиться